In re L.A.
Filed 7/27/06 In re L.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 L.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENARD A., Defendant and Appellant. | F049557 (Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ300203)
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.)
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Denard A. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his seven-year-old daughter, L.A.[1] He contends respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) failed to adequately address L.A.'s relationship with her older siblings so that the court did not have sufficient evidence upon which to base its finding that L.A. was likely to be adopted. He also contends the court should have preserved his relationship with L.A. because they shared a significant bond notwithstanding the fact that he stopped visiting L.A. for more than a year before the termination hearing. On review, we disagree with appellant's contentions and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Appellant's April 1999 arrest on charges of physically abusing his three young children brought one-year-old L.A. and her toddler-aged siblings to the department's attention. By the end of July 1999, the Fresno County Superior Court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children (§ 300, subds. (a) [physical abuse] & (b) neglect]), adjudged the children dependents, and removed them from parental custody.
Despite 12 months of reunification efforts, none of the children could be returned to parental care. Appellant completed some aspects of the reunification plan. However, he continued to deny responsibility for any abuse and attended therapy only up to the point that it was going to address the issues of abuse.[2] Consequently, in November 2000, the court terminated reunification services and set the first of three section 366.26 hearings to select and implement permanent plans for L.A.
In June 2001, the court selected long-term foster care as the permanent plan for all three children. A psychologist, who conducted a family bonding study, offered his opinion that the children would be greatly harmed if their relationship with appellant were terminated. Notably, the psychologist conditioned his opinion--that a continued parent/child relationship would be more beneficial than adoption--upon appellant's compliance with all of the court's requirements and satisfactory progress in counseling. The psychologist added:
â€
