James C. v. Superior Court
Filed 6/5/06 James C. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| JAMES C., JR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. |
F050147
(Super. Ct. No. JJV058582)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte Wittig, Juvenile Court Referee.
James C., Jr., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his son, J.D. We will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner and Jacqueline, husband and wife, are the parents of a son, J.D., and a daughter, J.R. In August 2004, then 12-year-old J.D. and five-year-old J.R. were removed from Jacqueline's custody after police officers found the children alone at a farmers market late in the evening. Jacqueline was located nearby at a motel under the influence of drugs. According to the children, Jacqueline regularly left them alone for extended periods of time. There were also allegations, though unsubstantiated, that the children were sexually molested. At the time the children were removed, petitioner was serving a seven-year prison sentence for spousal abuse. He is scheduled for release in May 2008.
In October 2004, the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered reunification services for Jacqueline only. The Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) placed the children in separate foster homes.
Over the next year, Jacqueline complied with her services and she and J.R. were progressing toward reunification. Unfortunately, the same was not true of J.D., who was exhibiting bizarre and inappropriate sexual behavior. Consequently, in September 2005, the juvenile court placed J.R. in Jacqueline's care under a plan of family maintenance and continued reunification services for Jacqueline and J.D.
In February 2006, J.D. was removed from his foster home after his foster mother reported that J.D. and her three-year-old son were wrestling and J.D. placed his hand on her son's groin area in what J.D. explained was a wrestling move. The agency attempted to place J.D. with petitioner, but she declined, fearing that she could not protect J.R. from J.D.'s sexually inappropriate behavior. In addition, the agency was unable to locate a foster family willing to take J.D. Consequently, with Jacqueline's consent, the agency placed J.D. in a group home.
On March 14, 2006, the juvenile court conducted an 18-month review hearing at which it terminated dependency jurisdiction for J.R. and granted Jacqueline sole legal and physical custody of her. As to J.D., the court set a section 366.26 hearing for July 7, 2006, to consider placing him permanently in a group home. The court also denied petitioner visitation.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not raise any cognizable error. Rather, he seeks to preserve his parental rights and to receive reunification services and visitation upon his release from custody. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition with the following discussion.
Petitioner's parental rights with respect to J.D. are not in jeopardy. The agency's current plan is long-term placement in a group home, which will not result in termination of his parental rights. However, if the plan changes and the juvenile court terminates petitioner's parental rights at the upcoming or any subsequently conducted section 366.26 hearing, petitioner may file a notice of appeal from the court's termination order.
Further, as long as the juvenile court has dependency jurisdiction over J.D. and petitioner's parental rights are intact, he may file a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to modify its prior orders denying him reunification services and visitation.[2] However, petitioner will have to show in his section 388 petition that his circumstances have changed and that modification based on that change would be in J.D.'s best interest. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Hill, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Section 388 allows the parent of a child adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to change, modify or set aside any order upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.
