In re Mario
Filed 2/15/06 In re Mario P. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| In re MARIO P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID C., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050632
(Super. Ct. No. JD220545)
|
On August 4, 2005, the juvenile court terminated the juvenile dependency case of two-year-old Mario P. (Mario), granted his mother Deena N. (mother) sole physical and legal custody of Mario and ordered David C. (appellant), father of Mario, to have no visitation or contact with Mario. Appellant seeks reversal of the no-contact, no-visitation order, as well as the order granting sole legal custody to mother. Finding no abuse of discretion, we shall affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mario was prematurely born in June 2003, when mother was 16 years old. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine. She was a runaway who had no prenatal care. Although mother and appellant had never resided together, mother listed appellant as Mario's father on Mario's birth certificate. A short time after Mario's birth appellant was arrested and convicted of attempted burglary and vehicle theft. He was sentenced to six years in state prison and is not scheduled to be released until April 2008. Sacramento Children's Protective Services (CPS) investigated and opened an informal supervision case. Mother participated in various services in the informal supervision program from June 2003 until January 2004. She was discharged from the program on January 15, 2004.
Mario was taken into protective custody on May 17, 2004, when an inspection of mother's home found it did not meet basic health and safety standards. In addition, mother had failed to keep medical appointments for Mario. Mother refused to drug test and it was suspected mother was using methamphetamine again. She was eight months pregnant with her second child. A dependency petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging Mario came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) based on mother's actions and subdivision (g) (no provision for support) based on appellant's incarceration.
Appellant received notice of the juvenile court dependency proceedings and wrote a letter asking to be present at the next court date. Appellant was appointed counsel even though he was still an alleged father at this point and an order was signed for his transportation to the jurisdiction and disposition hearing.
The social worker's report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing reflected appellant had, in addition to the attempted burglary and vehicle theft convictions for which he was in prison, two other previous convictions. In 2001, appellant was convicted of misuse of a public transit pass in violation of Penal Code section 640, subdivision (b)(2) and felony possession, manufacture or sale of a dangerous weapon in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). The report recommended no reunification services be provided to appellant pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).
An addendum report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing reflected mother had begun attending the Merci Perinatal Drug Treatment program in June 2004 and that she was making â€
