In re T.C.

Filed 2/15/07  In re T.C. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

            In this juvenile dependency proceeding, the father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights.  We affirm.

Background

            On January 26, 2005, T.C. (T1) and T2, aged 5 and 3, along with two half-siblings, were taken into protective custody.  Their mother had been arrested on January 4 on charges of burglary, petty theft and possession of a controlled substance.  She was in jail, and had left the children in the care of her 18-year-old niece.  The children had food, but on January 25, 2005, the social worker learned from the landlord that no rent had been paid and he would be evicting them.  On January 28, 2005, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300[1]), alleging a failure to protect (§  300, subd. (b)) and no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)).  On January  31, 2005, the court ordered temporary detention for the children.  In February, the court found the Department had made a prima facie showing of failure to protect and failure to support, and ordered the children be detained. 

            An uncontested jurisdictional hearing was held on April 12, 2005, at which time the court sustained the petition.  The father had not been located and did not appear.  On May 10, 2005, the court ordered the children into the care, custody and control of the Department.  It ordered reunification services for the mother and adopted the Department's case plan as to her.  The father still had not been located and did not appear.  The court ruled no services would be offered to the father at that time because he was only an alleged father and therefore not entitled to reunification services.  A six-month review was set for November 10, 2005, and was continued to November 29, 2005.  The father did not appear.  The court found no substantial probability the children might be returned to the mother within the next six months.  It ordered termination of reunification services, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights. 

            On January 18, 2006, nearly one year after the children had been detained, the father, after contacting the Department, filed a section 388 petition, seeking reunification services.  He claimed he had only recently received notice that his parental rights were in jeopardy and wished to have the care and custody of his children.  He asserted he was T1 and T2's father and had lived with them until March 11, 2002, when they were, respectively, two and one-half years and 20 months old.  He continued to have regular contact with them until March 31, 2003, when he was sent to prison.  After he was released in January 2004, he had no contact with the children and was unable to locate them, until the mother called, asking if he wanted to see the children.  She left T1 and T2 with him for three months, and then she disappeared with them.  The father was charged with a parole violation in May 2005 and served time in San Quentin until August 2005.  When he was released, he lived at the Mission Solano Center for about four months.  He saw the mother several times in August.  She told him the children were in protective custody, but asked him not to get involved, telling him there was a hearing in November 2005 about visitation.  She did not tell him the hearing actually was about terminating reunification services.  When the father did not hear from the mother in November, he contacted his parole officer, who advised him to contact the social worker.  He did so in December, but because of the holidays was unable to reach her until January.  The social worker told him to contact his court-appointed attorney.  The father complained that he never had been given the opportunity to engage in reunification services.  He requested he be found to be the presumed father of T1 and T2, and be provided with reunification services. 

            A hearing was held on February 2, 2006, at which the court deemed the father to be the presumed father of T1 and T2.  The matter was continued so the father could meet with the social worker.  On March 10, 2006, the court held a hearing on the father's section 388 petition.[2]  By then, the father was in custody in Solano County for a DUI.  He testified he hadn't seen the children for approximately one year, but was certain they knew him to be their father and had bonded with him.  He reiterated he had tried to find the children, but had not learned anything about them until the mother told him they had been taken into protective custody, asking him not to interfere and let her handle it.  He took no action because he had been very much in love with the mother and trusted her.  He decided to act after November passed and he hadn't heard from the mother.  He was unable to reach the social worker until January, when she told him to contact his court-appointed attorney.  He made an appointment with the attorney, meeting with him on January 18, 2006, at which time they prepared his petition. 

            The father admitted he had been a â€