Michael R. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 7/6/06 Michael R. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| MICHAEL R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | E040146 (Super.Ct.No. J195604) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. David Cohn, Judge. Petition denied.
Harold Gun Lai for Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent.
W. Andrew Hartzell, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Dennis E. Wagner, Interim County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner Michael R. (Father) is the father of Jasmin R. (the minor), a dependent child. In this writ petition, Father challenges the juvenile court's finding that he received adequate reunification services and argues that, because the services were inadequate and he had made substantial progress in his case plan, the juvenile court should have given him six more months of reunification services. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that the services were adequate and that Father was not eligible to receive additional services.
Statement of Facts and Procedure
On June 15, 2004, the Department of Children's Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.[1] The petition alleged that the minor's mother and Father had left her in the care of her older half brothers, who had sexually abused her. On June 16, 2004, the minor was ordered detained in the home of her paternal grandmother and reunification services were ordered for both parents. The juvenile court found the allegations to be true at the jurisdictional hearing held on January 4 and 13, 2005.
At the dispositional hearing held on February 9, 2005, the juvenile court approved a reunification plan and ordered both Father and the mother to undergo psychological
evaluations at Department expense. Father underwent a psychological evaluation on February 21 and 22, 2005. The delivered service log for March 7, 2005, states that Father appeared agitated and repeatedly insisted the worker tell him the results of the psychological evaluation. When the social worker told Father that she would give a copy of the evaluation to Father's attorney but not to him, Father became angry and said he would not submit to any further tests. The social worker also testified that Father called her on a number of occasions to ask either for a copy of the evaluation or to discuss the results with her, but she told him that she would submit a copy of the report to his therapist once he began therapy, and that she had given him referrals for therapy.
At the sixth-month review hearing held on September 12, 2005, the juvenile court continued reunification services and expanded Father's visitation with the minor to include unsupervised visits. After that hearing, in which the juvenile court ordered the parents to â€
