In re Joshua S.
Filed 5/16/06 In re Joshua S. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re JOSHUA S., JR., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA S., SR., Defendant and Appellant. | F049094 (Super. Ct. No. 03CEJ300265-1)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Michael B. McPartland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Joshua S., Sr. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his three-year-old namesake.[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by rejecting his claim that the child would benefit from an ongoing parent/child relationship. On review, we disagree and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Joshua Jr. came to the attention of respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) in November 2003. At that time, the 16- month-old child lived with his paternal grandparents who, due to poor health, could no longer care for him. Appellant left the child when he was still an infant with the grandparents without providing any financial support or any authority to meet the child's medical needs.[2] In the days leading up to the child's detention, the grandparents asked appellant to come and pick up his son; however, appellant did not come forward or make any other plan for the child's care.
These events caused the department to initiate the underlying dependency proceedings and the Fresno County Superior Court to exercise its jurisdiction (§ 300, subd. (b)), adjudge Joshua, Jr., a dependent child, and remove him from parental custody. Despite 12 months of reunification services, appellant failed to regularly participate in services, let alone make any progress. In essence, appellant refused to address his underlying problem with substance abuse. At most, he visited his son so that they were developing a relationship; however, appellant never progressed beyond supervised visitation.
Consequently, in February 2005, the court terminated all reunification efforts and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for Joshua Jr. At appellant's request, the court ordered a bonding study between father and son.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the department prepared reports for the court recommending that the court find the child adoptable and order the termination of parental rights. Relevant to the issue on appeal, the department reported appellant visited inconsistently with the child until February 2005 when the court set the section 366.26 hearing. Thereafter, appellant regularly attended scheduled visits with his son. Joshua Jr. appeared to feel comfortable in appellant's presence and to generally enjoy the visits. The department also attached a copy of the bonding study which in summary concluded that â€
