In re Jasmine G.

Filed 2/15/07  In re Jasmine G. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

            APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irwin Garfinkel, Referee.  Affirmed.

            Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jerry  M. Custis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

            Jaime G. (father) appeals from juvenile court orders denying his petition for modification of certain orders regarding his children Jasmine, Priscilla and Jaime, Jr., and terminating parental rights as to Jasmine, freeing her for adoption.

            Father contends that:  (1) the dependency court erred by not setting a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1] hearing on whether father could prove a parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A); (2) the court should have sustained a sibling relationship exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E); (3) the court erred in not setting a hearing on his petition for modification under section 388; and (4) father did not receive proper notice of the section 366.26 hearing.  We disagree and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Jasmine (born November 1997), Priscilla (born October 1998) and Jaime, Jr., (born April 2000) were placed with their paternal grandparents in August 2000, due to issues related to or involved with the parents' drug use and domestic violence.^[2]  Jasmine, now 9, was then about 2 1/2 years old.

            Since then, the grandparents have provided excellent care for the children, while father and mother have done little, if anything, to address the issues that caused their children to enter the dependency system.

            In September 2000, father and mother agreed to a case plan that required father to attend a drug rehabilitation program with random testing, domestic violence counseling, parenting education and individual counseling.  The juvenile court allowed the parents monitored visitation with the children and cautioned them, in view of their children's age, to â€