In re Jose B.
Filed 7/18/06 In re Jose B. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| In re JOSE B., a Minor. _____________________________________ JOSE B., SR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B190380 (Super. Ct. No. CK50682) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Debra Losnick, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Merrill Lee Toole for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Jerry M. Custis, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services._______________________________
Petitioner Jose B., Sr. seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court's order setting a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for his one-year-old son Jose. We deny the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2005, eleven days after Jose was born with a positive toxicology for illegal drugs, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] seeking to declare him a dependent child of the juvenile court. The petition included allegations that Jose B., Sr. was aware Jose's mother was abusing drugs and failed to take action to protect Jose, and that Jose B., Sr. had a history of substance abuse endangering Jose's physical and emotional health. In its report for the detention hearing, the Department explained that staff at the hospital where Jose was born reported that Jose B., Sr. had appeared at the hospital three days after Jose's birth, but he was not allowed to have contact with Jose because he appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Jose B., Sr. told the hospital staff that he lived in Riverside County. A background check disclosed Jose B., Sr. had an extensive criminal arrest history, including burglary, theft, stalking and possessing a firearm at a school. At the detention hearing, the court authorized the Department to place Jose with any appropriate relative, and ordered the Department to investigate Jose's possible placement with his paternal grandparents and prepare a report. In its report, the Department indicated that Jose B., Sr. was living with his parents along with two sisters, a cousin and his grandmother. The Department recommended against placing Jose in the home in view of Jose B., Sr.'s drug history, his apparent current use of drugs, his previous statement that he lived in Riverside County, and the lack of live-scan criminal
background checks of the other residents. At a hearing on July 6, the court declined to place Jose in the grandparents' home.
In its report submitted August 10, 2005 for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Department indicated Jose B., Sr. had tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines on July 27, and had told the social worker he knew Jose's mother was using drugs during her pregnancy, he used to do drugs with her on a weekly basis, and he continued to smoke marijuana with amphetamines on weekends. Jose B., Sr. had not visited Jose, having failed to appear for his one scheduled visit on July 29. The social worker had given Jose B., Sr. referrals for drug rehabilitation, counseling, and parenting programs, but as of August 9 he had not enrolled in any program and had failed to keep his appointments to meet with the social worker. The Department recommended that the court proceed to a permanent plan for Jose, without reunification services for either parent. On August 10 the court sustained the dependency petition and continued the case for the disposition hearing on September 12. The court ordered the Department to prepare a supplemental report, addressing the parents' progress and any changes in its recommendation.
In its supplemental report, the Department advised that Jose B., Sr. had reported that he had enrolled in parenting and drug counseling programs and was testing for drugs. The social worker had monitored a visit between Jose B., Sr., the paternal grandparents, Jose and the foster parents, and observed Jose B., Sr. hold Jose in his arms and thank the foster parents for taking good care of Jose. Based on these developments and Jose B., Sr.'s cooperation with the social worker, the Department recommended that Jose B., Sr. receive reunification services. At the disposition hearing on September 12, the court granted reunification services to Jose B., Sr. and ordered him to participate in a parenting program and in drug counseling with weekly random drug testing.[2] The court continued the case for the six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
The Department's report for the six-month hearing indicated Jose B., Sr. had enrolled in a six-month outpatient drug program with parent education in August 2005, but was terminated for lack of attendance in October. He had also stopped drug testing, and did not appear for two scheduled tests in November and December. The social worker spoke with Jose B., Sr. several times and made arrangements for him to come to the Department's office for tests, but he failed to appear each time. Jose B., Sr. visited Jose just twice between July 2005 and March 2006. During the first visit, in September 2005, he would not hold Jose in his arms. At the second visit in October, he had to be forced to hold Jose. On January 3, 2006, Jose B., Sr. was arrested for infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Jose's mother). He was convicted, served three weeks in jail, and was placed on three years probation. In February 2006 Jose B., Sr. reenrolled in a six-month outpatient drug program. The Department recommended termination of reunification services for Jose B., Sr., citing his failure to attend programs and to drug test, his apparent lack of concern for Jose's well-being, and his failure to bond with Jose. The Department concluded Jose B., Sr. â€
