In re O.F.

Filed 1/31/07  In re O.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE COURT^* 

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.  Jane Cardoza, Judge.

            Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Tyrell F. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, §  366.26 ) to his daughter.^[1]  Appellant's appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated January 10, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming  (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952).  By order dated January 18, 2007, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.

            Appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court.  In it, he asks this court to reverse the termination order and an order denying his petition for reunification services as well as grant him visitation with his daughter.  He bases his requests on what he perceives to be a strong relationship between himself and his daughter such that the lack of visitation, the lack of services and the termination of his rights are not in her best interest.  

BACKGROUND

            Ongoing domestic violence between appellant and his live-in girlfriend led to appellant's arrest and incarceration as well as respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services's (department) detention of five-year-old O. in February 2005.  In addition to his domestic violence history, appellant suffered untreated substance abuse.  In light of the severity and longevity of petitioner's untreated problems and his inability to provide O. a stable environment, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and denied appellant reunification services (§  361.5, subd. (b)(13)) in June 2005.  While it was undisputed at the time that appellant and O. were bonded and attached, there was no showing that services would be in O.'s best interest.  The court in turn set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for O. in October 2005.  This court upheld the trial court's decision on review of appellant's writ petition under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (former rule 38.1).  (Tyrell F. v. Superior Court, F048205.)

            By the time of the October 2005 hearing, a court-ordered bonding study concluded that although the child was very attached to appellant, she would not be greatly harmed if the parent/child relationship were terminated.  Moreover, a continued parent/child relationship would not promote the child's well-being so as to outweigh the benefits of adoption.  However, O. was difficult to place for adoption and, as a result, the court continued the child's permanency planning for six months so that an adoptive home could be located.  It also suspended visitation between appellant and the child until it was therapeutically advised.  As of this point, appellant had been committed to state prison and the concern was that visitation in a prison environment would exacerbate behavioral problems the child was experiencing.  Appellant did not seek appellate review of the order suspending visitation.  As a result, the last time appellant and O. visited was in September 2005.  The child's therapist never recommended that visitation resume.

            The court eventually conducted the section 366.26 hearing a year later in October 2006.  By this time, O. was in a successful adoptive placement and it was undisputed that she was adoptable.  While appellant maintained he and O. still shared a bond such that termination would be detrimental to O., he presented no evidence other than his own opinion.  In addition, he requested reunification services based on his efforts to access services while in prison.  It was undisputed, however, that appellant would remain in prison for at least another six-plus months.  The court denied appellant's request for services and, having found O. adoptable, terminated parental rights.  Thereafter, appellant requested an in-person â€