In re Alejandro J

Filed 3/15/06 In re Alejandro J. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Vincent J. (hereafter the father) appeals an order terminating parental rights to his son, Alejandro J. (hereafter the minor), and releasing the minor for adoption. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 5, 2004, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (hereafter Human Services) filed a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 to place the minor under the jurisdiction of the court. The petition alleges that the minor was born with a positive toxin screen for methamphetamine and that the parents had an extensive history of drug abuse. The minor's three siblings were dependent children of the San Mateo County Juvenile Court and the court had terminated reunification services for them. A detention report set forth a history of seven prior referrals for the family before the minor's birth.

The juvenile court issued interim detention orders detaining the minor for a short period in the hospital and then placing him in the home of a paternal aunt. A jurisdictional report reviewed the history of the parents' failure to participate in drug treatment programs or to comply with court orders relating to earlier dependency proceedings for the minor's three siblings. On February 28, 2005, Human Services requested judicial notice of documents in three juvenile dependency petitions relating to the minor's siblings.

After two continuances, the jurisdictional hearing was held on April 12, 2005. A report of a social worker filed December 6, 2004, stated that the father had failed to make scheduled appointments and to request rescheduling. He was not participating in toxicology screening or in the substance abuse programs to which he had been assigned. He did not visit the minor during the last week of his stay in the hospital or call to inquire about his welfare. A later report filed February 25, 2005, stated that the father had failed to maintain scheduled appointments, to participate in a drug treatment program, or to test for narcotics. During the period after the minor was released in November to January 25, 2005, the father had visited the minor five times, but he failed to maintain visitation on three occasions in February and March, even when Human Services provided transportation.

Following a contested hearing on April 12, 2005, the court sustained the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and declared the minor to be a dependent child of the court. The court ordered the minor to continue to be detained in the home of the paternal aunt, but allowed the father the right of visitation under the supervision of a social worker. The court granted the request for judicial notice of proceedings relating to siblings and ordered that reunification services would not be provided to the parents pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), because of failure to address the problems leading to removal of the siblings. The court did not allow the mother a right of visitation but in other respects the findings and orders with respect to the mother corresponded to those applying to the father.

The court set a date for hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The parents were notified of their rights to file a writ petition but did not challenge the order.

The social worker's report for the hearing described the minor as â€