In re D.G

Filed 3/30/06 In re D.G. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Anna L. Ollinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Leonora M.

Kimberly A. Knill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant Damian G.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Arezoo Pichvai, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal by Damian G. and Leonora M. from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights over their child, D. G. (hereinafter Father or Mother respectively, or parent's collectively.) Father argues that he did not receive notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearings. Respondent concedes that adequate notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearings was not provided Father and that the order should be reversed as to Father only. Mother challenges the court's order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition for modification and finding that the parent-child exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) does not apply. Respondent argues that the juvenile court's orders regarding Mother are correct. Respondent also argues that any error with respect to Father's claim does affect the analysis of Mother's appeal.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

D. G. is the son of Leonora M. and Damian G.[2] D. was eight months old when he came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In April 2004, after Mother was incarcerated for forgery and violation of probation, DCFS filed a petition alleging neglect pursuant to section 300. In June 2004, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency petition and ordered D. returned to Mother under a voluntary family maintenance contract pursuant to section 301. Mother signed the contract on June 15, 2004, which required her to complete parenting and individual counseling.

Beginning around August 20, 2004, DCFS was unable to locate Mother or son.[3] On September 2, 2004, DCFS found D. in the home of Father's girlfriend, Tieassa L., who reported that Mother had dropped D. off at her home a few days before and had not returned to pick him up. Tieassa was unwilling to continue to care for the boy. On September 10, 2004, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging, in part, that Mother left D. with an unrelated caretaker without making provisions for his on-going care and supervision. The petition also alleged that Mother did not leave appropriate medication to treat the child's asthma with the caretaker. The petition also alleges that D. has two siblings that were previously declared dependent children of the juvenile court and that Mother has failed to reunify with those children. The allegations were sustained at a detention hearing on December 21, 2004. At the hearing, the court ordered temporary placement and custody of D. with DCFS pending disposition or further order of the court. Mother was permitted to have a minimum of twice a week visitation for up to two hours in duration. The court advised Mother that DCFS was not recommending reunification services, but if she involved herself in drug programs and started taking classes, and returned to court showing that she really wanted her child back, â€