In re E.Q.
Filed 3/23/06 In re E.Q. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re E. Q. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD Q., Defendant and Appellant. | E039397 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ106192) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
I. INTRODUCTION
Edward Q. (father) appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights[1] as to minors E. Q. (born in August 2002) and J. M. (born in June 2003) under Welfare and Institutions Code[2] section 366.26. We find no error, and we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2003, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (Department) filed a petition as to minors under section 300. The petition alleged that J. M. and mother tested positive for amphetamines when J. M. was born; mother admitted using controlled substances regularly during her pregnancy; father knew or should have known of mother's substance abuse, but he failed to protect minors; and father had a history of perpetrating domestic violence on mother. The juvenile court found that father was the presumed father of the minors, and the court ordered the minors detained. The Department's detention report stated that father had been arrested in October 2002 for domestic violence after allegedly striking mother in the mouth, and he had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for domestic violence.
In July 2003, the Department filed an amended petition adding the allegations that the whereabouts of both parents were unknown, and that they had left E. Q. in the care of relatives without making provision for his care and support and without remaining in contact with the relatives. The Department later reported that the parents had left E. Q. with a paternal aunt, who had in turn left him with another paternal aunt. Neither of the aunts knew parents' current whereabouts, and the parents had not contacted the Department. Father had tested positive for methamphetamine in June 2003.
In July 2003, the Department reported that the minors were currently living in foster homes. Father and mother, who were both 19 years old, regularly used drugs, and were homeless. Father was reported to have gang affiliations. Father was detained in the Banning Detention Center. The paternal grandparents expressed an interest in caring for minors and had submitted to background checks, the results of which were pending. A paternal aunt had expressed an interest in caring for E. Q., but she was then living in a two-bedroom apartment with six other people. Another relative had expressed an interest in caring for the children, but she had not undergone a background check.
The Department filed an addendum report in August 2003 stating that father had been released from custody. Parents had visited with the children at a Department office. Mother had reported that she and father were both using drugs. Mother was being assessed for a residential treatment program.
In August 2003, at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition as amended and found that minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b). The court ordered reunification services for both parents. The court authorized placement of the children with mother on the conditions she remained in her residential substance abuse program, tested negative for controlled substances, and participated in an aftercare program and in drug court.
In October 2003, the Department filed a section 387 petition alleging that mother had been discharged from her residential drug treatment program for failure to comply with program rules. The juvenile court detained the minors in a foster home, removed them from mother's care, and ordered that they be placed with a relative upon a suitable home evaluation. The court ordered reunification services for mother.
In October 2003, the Department reported that father had contacted the social worker only once; he had requested a visit, but then failed to keep the appointment. In November 2003, the Department reported that father was again incarcerated. He expected to be released on November 22 or 23, and he then intended to participate in outpatient treatment, parenting classes, random drug testing, and domestic violence classes. However, he had not made himself available before his detention to receive services.
The minors remained in confidential foster care. A maternal aunt had been unable to care for them because she lived in a one-bedroom apartment and had children of her own. Mother had weekly visits with the children. Father had not visited them because he was incarcerated.
In late November, the Department arranged for father to visit minors. â€
