In re E.A.

Filed 3/6/06 In re E.A. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

Luis A., father of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Appellant contends the court erred in terminating his parental rights because he established the minors would benefit from continued contact with him. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) We affirm.

FACTS

The minors, N.S., age 10, El.A., age 7 and Es.A., age 6, were removed from the mother's custody in December 2003 due to her substance abuse and domestic violence in the home. Appellant was in custody on drug charges and on an immigration hold. The minors were placed with a maternal aunt. The court ordered visitation with appellant for the minors

Prior to the minors' removal, appellant had been in weekly contact with them and regularly participated in their lives. Although appellant was not N.S.'s biological father, he held her out as his own. Appellant wanted to regain custody of the minors and proposed that they be placed with the paternal grandmother in Mexico. In addition to his current incarceration, appellant had been deported in 1994 and sentenced to prison on drug charges in 1997 and 1998.

The minors were reportedly happy to visit appellant and wanted to see him more often. The social worker observed a strong bond between the minors and appellant but recommended denial of services due to appellant's custodial status.

The court sustained the amended petition in May 2004. In July 2004, the court denied services to appellant, set a selection and implementation hearing for the minors, and authorized a visit to the paternal grandmother in Mexico.

In a subsequent report, the minors' therapist stated that the minors said they did not want to live in Mexico, in part, because they were not fluent in Spanish. However, the minors did like visiting the paternal grandmother there. The paternal grandmother told the social worker the minors told her they did want to live with her in Mexico. The social worker concluded that the minors wanted to be with appellant but because he remained in custody, that was not possible. Further, while the paternal grandmother's home was an approved placement, the minors did not want to live there. Additional paternal relatives living in southern California were suggested as possible placements and the maternal grandmother was also being assessed as a placement alternative.

The assessment for the section 366.26 hearing stated that the minors continued to visit appellant monthly. The minors lived together in the maternal aunt's home and were well-bonded to each other. They were also bonded to the maternal aunt, maternal grandmother, and appellant. Both the maternal grandmother and the paternal grandmother had been approved as prospective adoptive placements. The minors initially wanted to be placed with the paternal grandmother because they believed appellant would also be living there. However, on learning he would not be, they were adamant that they did not want to be placed in Mexico. The minors have ongoing contact with the maternal grandmother and want to live with her. The social worker recommended placement with the maternal grandmother, while recognizing that the paternal grandmother was also approved but that the minors did not want to go there.

In an addendum, the minors' therapist reviewed their progress in overcoming their Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The therapist supported the minors' desires to be placed with the maternal grandmother and noted that the maternal grandmother was proactive in preventing further trauma to the minors.

Prior to the section 366.26 hearing, the mother's return to the minors' lives resulted in conflict and acting out by the minors. As a result, the social worker sought court approval to move the minors from the maternal aunt's home to the maternal grandmother's care. The court granted the placement change.

At the section 366.26 hearing in May 2005, appellant testified that the minors visited him once a month for about 15-20 minutes. He believed the minors would suffer if his parental rights were terminated because they did not know what was happening and he did not believe the maternal grandmother would allow continued contact with him. N.S. testified she would like to visit appellant more and did not want his parental rights terminated. However, N.S. also testified that she wanted her maternal grandmother to adopt her. El.A. testified she liked visiting appellant and would be sad if she could not. However, El.A. also testified that if she could choose where to live she would choose the maternal grandmother and wanted to be adopted. The maternal grandmother testified that the minors looked forward to visits with appellant. In its ruling, the juvenile court found no compelling reason that termination would be detrimental to the minors and no evidence of great harm to the minors if appellant's parental rights were terminated.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the evidence showed the minors would benefit from continued contact with him and the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights.

â€