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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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, petitioner appeals from an order denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition to modify earlier orders, seeking services to facilitate his reunification with two children, T. C. (T1) and T2.  We affirm.

Background

            On January 26, 2005, four children, including T1 and T2, were removed from their mother's home after their mother, who had been arrested on charges of burglary, petty theft and possession of a controlled substance, left them in the care of the mother's 18-year-old niece.  The family also was being evicted for failing to pay rent.  One child, a 13-year-old, had not attended school for several months and T1 and T2, aged five and three, had not been enrolled in kindergarten or preschool.[2]

            On January 28, 2005, the Department filed a section 300 petition.  At that time, the Department initiated a due diligence search for petitioner, identifying him as the alleged father.  A detention hearing was held on January 31, 2005.  The court ordered temporary detention for the children, and appointed counsel for the mother and for the children.  Although the identity of the children's father or fathers had not yet been determined, counsel also was appointed to represent the father.  On February  3, the court, finding a prima facie case had been made that the children had been left without any provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)), ordered their detention, and continued the matter to February  24, 2005, for a jurisdictional hearing.  The court later found a prima facie case had been made for a failure to protect.  (§  300, subd.  (b)). 

            The mother appeared on February 24, 2005.  The matter was continued to March  10, 2005.  The Department reported the due diligence search for petitioner was pending.  An uncontested jurisdictional hearing was held on April 12, 2005.  The court sustained the petition, exercised jurisdiction over the children and continued the matter to May 3, 2005, for a dispositional hearing.  The hearing was continued to May 10, 2005.  By this time the Department had obtained an address for petitioner, and notice of the May  10 hearing was served on him at that address by first class mail. 

            The Department reported the mother stated petitioner was the father of T1 and T2.  She had lived with him at his mother's house for two years, during which time T1 and T2 were born.  Petitioner had three older children, so that his wages had been garnished whenever he had a job.  They moved in with the mother's brother.  Petitioner introduced her to drugs.  She broke up with him in 2003, and he went back to live with his mother.  The mother later got back together with him and they moved in with the mother's father.  They were arrested for taking items from a Wal-Mart, and petitioner was sent to prison because of his prior record.  After petitioner was released and again living with his mother, the mother sent T1 and T2 to live with him until she got an apartment.  In October 2004 she and the children moved into the house where they were living when the children were taken into protective custody.  The mother reported she allowed T1 and T2 to visit petitioner, even though he had beaten their older sibling with a belt and on one occasion had not changed the children's clothing or removed their shoes for two days, and when she picked them up he was talking to someone, but no one else was in the room.  She explained she continued to take the children to petitioner because â€