In re Pattie E
Filed 3/29/06 In re Pattie E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re PATTIE E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES E., Defendant and Appellant. | E039031 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ004139) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert W. Nagby, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, James E. (Father) is the biological father of the minor, Pattie E., born in July 1995. Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of the minor on January 27, 2005.[1] DPSS became aware of the minor through a child abuse report made on January 21, 2005. The report detailed general neglect of the child. She had not been to school for four days. When last seen at school, she was wearing dirty clothing and appeared not to have bathed in some time. She was frequently hungry and was living with her stepmother (Stepmother) in inadequate housing, without running water, heat, or toilet facilities and with strange men frequenting the premises. Father was incarcerated, and the whereabouts of Pattie's real mother were unknown. Pattie had not seen her real mother since December of 2002.[2]
DPSS took Pattie into protective custody. Further investigation revealed the family's involvement since 1996 with the Orange County Juvenile Court. In 2004 Father had been granted physical custody of Pattie, and her dependency in Orange County was terminated. Father has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, recurring commitments to state prison, and violence after using drugs and alcohol. He and Stepmother lived for a time in Las Vegas, where he was arrested after absconding from his parole in California.
Stepmother also engaged in illicit drug use and had been arrested for drug possession and check charges. She used at least six aliases. She married Father while he was in prison so that social services could not remove Pattie from her care. Stepmother also had a history involving child protective services and her own children; they had been removed from her care in the past, and she had not reunited with them.
The petition filed by DPSS on January 27, 2005, alleged a failure to protect and no provision of support. DPSS asserted Father had left Pattie in the custody of an inadequate caretaker, Stepmother, and that he had an extensive history of criminal behavior and substance abuse. An amended petition was filed March 1, 2005, alleging that since Father's parental rights to two other children had been terminated, Pattie was at risk. DPSS recommended in several reports prepared for the contested jurisdictional hearing that Father be denied reunification services and a section 366.26 hearing be set.
Minor had been placed with a nonrelated family member, Tina K.,[3] who desired Pattie's placement with her. Tina was Father's cousin's ex-girlfriend. She stated she had had legal guardianship of the minor two years prior to the current dependency and cared about the child. Tina related that the child had flourished behaviorally and academically while in her care, and she expressed great concern for Pattie's welfare. By the time of a May 2005 addendum report, Pattie appeared to be happy and adjusting well with Tina.
At the contested jurisdictional hearing held on May 31, 2005, Father, in custody and represented by counsel, denied all the allegations. Father's stipulated testimony offered by his counsel consisted of denials of drug use and denials about his knowledge of Stepmother's inappropriateness as a caretaker. Father claimed to have allowed his other two children to be adopted believing it to be in their best interests.
The court, finding a number of the allegations of the amended petition true, denied reunification services to Father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). It also noted there was â€
