Matter of T.T.

Filed 8/30/06 Matter of T.T. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Marpet, Referee. Affirmed.

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, and Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION

Terrence D. appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated his parental rights to Hayden D. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] Terrence contends the trial court erred by failing to find Hayden difficult to place under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(3). We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Veronica is the mother of T.T. and Hayden. Terrence is the father of Hayden; Jose G. is the father of T. Neither Veronica nor Jose is a party to this appeal.

Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), initiated this case in August 2004 because a month before Veronica had dropped off T. and Hayden at the home of their maternal aunt, Bobbi T., without making provisions for the children's care. The whereabouts of all three parents was unknown. Veronica and Terrence had a history of domestic violence and both had histories of substance abuse. Additionally, Terrence had a criminal‑related record that included violence and drug‑related convictions and charges. In August 2004, T. was almost three years old and Hayden was twenty-one (21) months old.

By the time of the September 2004, jurisdictional hearing, Terrence had been located in prison. He was transported to the hearing. He advised the juvenile court that he expected to be paroled within a month. The juvenile court declared Terrence the presumed father of Hayden. The children continued to reside with Bobbi, who expressed a willingness to adopt them if they could not be reunified with their mother. The matter was continued.

All three parents appeared at the November 10, 2004, jurisdiction hearing, which was continued. The formal jurisdiction hearing was held on December 7, 2004. (§ 300.) None of the parents appeared. Bobbi and Hayden's paternal grandmother, Marti D., were present. The juvenile court again found Terrence to be the presumed father of Hayden. The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, declared the two children to be dependents of the court, found the children suitably placed with Bobbi, and ordered that mother and Terrence receive reunification services.

The six-month review hearing was held. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) Veronica's whereabouts were unknown and Terrence was incarcerated. Neither Veronica nor Terrence had complied with the case plan, visited the children, nor contacted the Department during the six-month review period. The two children were living with Bobbi, but spent two days per week at the home of Terrence's parents, Marti and Barry D. Marti expressed a desire to adopt both children. The children were doing well academically and socially. They were attached to Bobbi, happy, and getting along with Bobbi's three children. The Department recommended services for Veronica and Terrence be terminated. The court ordered Bobbi's boyfriend (Derrick) to have no contact with the children.[2] The hearing was continued.

The continued review hearing was held on March 22, 2005. Terrence had not complied with the case plan and he did not appear. Reunification services were terminated.

On May 3, 2005, the Department reported that Terrence was incarcerated. Both children remained in the care of Bobbi, who continued to express a strong desire to adopt them. The boys continued to have weekly overnight visits with Marti and Barry. Marti and Barry expressed an interest in adopting the children, but in any event wanted to continue to have regular visits.

For the July 26, 2005, hearing (§ 366.26), the Department reported that Terrence was incarcerated. The Department further reported that the children were developmentally normal and had healthy attachments to Bobbi, her children, and Marti, with whom they spent 50 percent of their time. Some behavioral problems were reported in that T. was rather aggressive with his younger brother Hayden. Bobbi remained committed to the two children. However, the Department was no longer recommending she adopt the children because (1) she had not provided the Department with the information necessary to complete the adoption assessment; (2) she was having some financial difficulties; (3) her apartment building was being torn down; (4) there were concerns that she did not fully understand the needs of the boys and the stress associated with raising five children; (5) she had not provided the Department with documentation about medical visits; (6) she had failed to inform the Department that she had taken an out‑of‑state trip and had left the children with their grandparents; and (7) Derrick, the father of her last born child, had a criminal background. The Department was recommending the children be adopted by Marti and Barry, who had a strong attachment to the boys and who had expressed an interest in adoption. The court ordered the children not be removed from Bobbi's home. The hearing was continued.

On October 3, 2005, Terrence personally appeared. The juvenile court could not verify whether Derrick and Bobbi lived apart. The trial court reminded Bobbi that she had to address the issue of Derrick's contact with the boys. The paternal grandparents had informed the Department that they would adopt if Bobbi did not do so. The grandparents did not want the children with strangers. The case was continued so that the Department could conduct studies on the homes of Bobbi, and Marti and Barry.

A report prepared for the January 30, 2006, continued hearing (§ 366.26) stated the adoption home study on the home of Bobbi was still proceeding, but the Department was not recommending that Bobbi adopt the children. The Department reported that it needed a continuance to complete the home assessment and notice to appellant. However, on the day of the hearing, another report was submitted. It stated that Bobbi's adoption home study had been re-initiated and it was hoped that the home study could be complete by the end of February. The report also stated that Bobbi's home had been reassessed and met requirements.

The permanency planning hearing was held on January 30, 2006. (§ 366.26.) Bobbi and Marti were both present. Terrence, who had been transported to the hearing, was present with counsel. Terrence's counsel stated that Terrence was expected to be released from prison within two weeks. Terrence opposed the termination of parental rights, and requested a continuance so a Section 388 petition could be filed. The trial court denied the continuance request and terminated parental rights. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children would be adopted. At the request of counsel for Veronica and the children, the juvenile court designated Bobbi as the children's prospective adoptive parent.

Terrence appealed from the order terminating parental rights.

DISCUSSION

1. The trial court did not err in not designating Hayden to be difficult to place.

Terrence contends the trial court erred in failing to designate Hayden as a â€