In re R.T.

Filed 4/11/06 In re R.T. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal under the California Appellate Project Independent Case System, for Objector and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

_____

Appellant R.T., Sr. (father) appeals the denial of his petition, under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388, seeking modification of an order placing his son, R., with a paternal cousin. In his petition, father requested custody of R., or alternatively, more liberalized visits with the child, and a bonding study. We hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant's section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing because father failed to make a prima facie showing that granting his requests for custody, liberalized visitation, or a bonding study would serve the best interests of the child. We therefore affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Father is the presumed father of six-year-old R., born in March 2000. On January 28, 2002, after father's request for intervention by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department), R. was taken into protective custody. On January 31, 2002, the Department filed a petition under section 300 on behalf of then almost two-year-old R. A detention report dated January 31, 2002 stated that father had a history of substance abuse as well as a criminal history dating back to 1974 for various offenses, including involuntary manslaughter, burglary, battery, and the transportation, sale, and use of narcotics. Father admitted to a social worker that he used crack cocaine at the time. There was also a history of domestic violence between father and R.'s mother, including an involuntary hospitalization after father told a case manager that he had thoughts of killing himself and R.'s mother. The juvenile court ordered that R. be detained, and that the Department provide father with family reunification services. Both parents were accorded monitored visits with the child, and the Department was given discretion to liberalize visitation. A subsequent case plan specified parental visitation of at least three hours per week. On February 13, 2002, R. was placed with his paternal aunt, Marie B.

In a jurisdiction/disposition report dated February 28, 2002, the Department reported that father and mother were separated but continued to be in conflict with one another. Father was enrolled in a drug recovery program and had tested negative for drugs. He had not yet enrolled in a parenting class because of financial problems. Father had visited with R. for an extended amount of time, including an overnight visit on February 24, 2002.

A report dated March 25, 2002, stated that R. had been moved from the home of his paternal aunt to the home of his paternal grandmother. The report further stated that father had had three daughters who had been removed from his custody, two of whom were emancipated and one who receives permanent placement services.

On April 3, 2002, the Department filed a first amended petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of R. A jurisdiction/disposition report dated April 4, 2002 stated that father had tested positive for cocaine on March 25, 2002. The report noted father had three older daughters who had been removed from his custody because of domestic violence issues and with whom father had failed to reunify. A social worker interviewed two of father's older daughters, who stated that father was abusive toward them. One daughter stated that father had been physically abusive and had hit her twice. Father told the social worker that his daughters were â€