In re E.Z.

Filed 2/21/07  In re E.Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)

----

     Cyrno L. and Samantha G. (appellants), the father and mother of E.Z. (the minor), appeal from an order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)  Appellants make several claims of alleged prejudicial errors in the dependency proceedings.  Finding no error, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     On March 10, 2005, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed an amended juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the one-year-old minor.  That petition alleged in part that appellants had substance abuse problems from which neither had rehabilitated and which rendered both unable to provide for the proper care of the minor.  The juvenile court sustained the petition as amended. 

     At an April 7, 2005, disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged the minor a dependent child, granted appellants reunification services, and ordered the minor placed with the minor's maternal aunt.^[1]  On October 27, 2005, the court terminated those services.  Thereafter, DHHS learned the aunt had relocated from Sacramento County to Fresno County without prior authorization, moved numerous times from residence to residence there, and had a criminal conviction.  According to one report, the minor's aunt stated she wished to adopt the minor but, as a consequence of the instability of the aunt's housing situation, the Adoptions Unit of DHHS declined to make an adoption home study referral. 

     On March 27, 2006, Cyrno filed a petition pursuant to section 388 to modify previous juvenile court orders that had terminated his reunification services and placed the minor with the aunt.  In his petition, Cyrno asked the court to return the minor to Cyrno's custody or grant him an additional period of reunification services.  Cyrno averred that he was participating in various programs, visiting with the minor as often as he could, and maintaining his sobriety.  Appellant also argued the modifications he sought would be in the best interests of the minor.  In support of the petition, appellant filed several documents attesting to his efforts. 

     DHHS opposed the petition for modification.  Noting Cyrno had received services previously and failed to reunify with the minor, the social worker stated Cyrno was not permitted to have the minor live with him at the substance abuse treatment facility where he resided.  According to DHHS, Cyrno would be at the facility for eight additional months, after which he would need to obtain his own residence, arrange for child care, and secure employment.  Moreover, Cyrno allegedly lacked knowledge of how to interact with a child who was the age of the minor.  Finally, DHHS asserted, the minor's â€