Filed 3/28/06 In re V. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re V., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | F048812 |
| MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERARDO V., Defendant and Appellant. |
(Super. Ct. Nos. BJP015665 & BJP015666)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Lee Gulliver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Douglas W. Nelson, Acting County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Gerardo V. challenges an order of the juvenile court denying him visitation with the minors V. and L. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Madera police officers took L. into protective custody when her mother, Ms. L., tested positive for amphetamines and opiates at the time of L.'s birth in April 2005. Following a full investigation, V., the 11-month-old sibling of L., was also placed in protective custody.
A petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300 on behalf of V. and L. A report prepared for the detention hearing noted that appellant was the presumed father of V. and was incarcerated at the California Correctional Center in Susanville. The report also noted that Mr. L., Ms. L.'s current husband, was the presumed father of both V. and L. and that his current whereabouts were unknown.
Appellant was not present at the April 28, 2005 detention hearing. However, he and Mr. L. were both represented by an attorney appointed the day before the hearing. The attorneys for appellant and Ms. L. submitted on the detention report. The juvenile court sustained the section 300, subdivision (b) allegations against Ms. L. The petition contained no allegations against appellant or Mr. L.
The report prepared for the disposition hearing recommended that V. and L. be adjudicated dependants of the juvenile court and that family reunification services be provided to Ms. L.
A disposition hearing held on May 13, 2005 was uncontested by Ms. L. and the juvenile court ordered reunification services to be provided to her. During the hearing, appellant's counsel informed the court that appellant was interested in reunification services, specifically visitation, as the presumed father of both V. and L. The court reserved jurisdiction on the issues of reunification services and visitation as to appellant because these issues had not been addressed in the disposition report.
A section 388 modification to the juvenile dependency petition was subsequently filed. The modified petition requested that reunification services not to be offered to appellant because the children were very young and had minimal opportunity to bond with appellant as a result of his incarceration. The modified petition noted appellant's prison term did not expire until March 2008, and the children were too young to benefit from telephone contact. The petition further noted that â€
