In re M.S.

Filed 8/28/06 In re M.S. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minors.

F.S. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.^[1]

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

J.S. (born 1999) and M.S. (born 2003) came to the attention of the Department of Children's Services (the Department) in February 2005. They were homeless, soaking wet and hungry. M.S. had a seizure earlier that day. The children were in the care of their mother, who had a reputation with the police as a prostitute and drug user. Dependency petitions were filed on February 15, 2005, alleging the parents' failure to protect and support under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The children were temporarily detained.

In March 2005, the Department reported that Father and the mother were not married and the children were not of Native American ancestry. The mother informed the Department that she had left Father when J.S. was small and that she had never left the children with Father because he would not care for them. The mother stated that Father had never provided care for the children and his ability to do so was questionable. The mother informed Father that the children had been detained. Father did not contact the Department, and the social worker had not been successful in her attempts to locate Father.

Father was present at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in March 2005. The court appointed counsel for him and continued the hearing.

In the May 2005 addendum report, it was noted the paternity tests confirmed that Father is the biological father of J.S. and M.S. The mother had tested positive for amphetamines on March 10. She was admitted to the hospital on March 29 claiming that she had been physically abused by Father. She again tested positive for amphetamines. Father had not visited with the children nor had he contacted the Department.

In May 2005, the juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings. Certain allegations of the section 300 petitions were sustained, the children were placed in the custody of the Department, Father was declared to be the presumed father of the children, and visitation and reunification services were ordered.

The November 23, 2005, report noted that Father had completed a parenting class; however, he had not enrolled in counseling or in anger management/domestic violence. When questioned, Father stated that he â€