In re Joshua J.
Filed 7/28/06 In re Joshua J. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re JOSHUA J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON S., Defendant and Appellant. | G036186 (Super. Ct. Nos. DP009077, DP009078, DP009079) O P I N I O N |
| In re JOSHUA J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON S. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G036298 (Super. Ct. Nos. DP009077, DP009078, DP009079) |
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jason S.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ronda S.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Dana J. Stits and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Jason S. (father) and Ronda S. (mother) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to Joshua (now age 13), Jennifer (10), and Jeffrey (4) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to this code, unless noted otherwise). Father also appeals from an order summarily denying his section 388 modification petition, in which he requested immediate return of the children to his care. Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing despite his declaration he moved into a residence separate from mother's. In addition, father and mother together argue the juvenile court erred by finding inapplicable the â€
