In re Damean G
Filed 4/26/06 In re Damean G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re DAMEAN G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187240 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK50056) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of California, Debra Losnick, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
John L. Dodd & Associates, Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jerry M. Custis, Deputy County Counsel for the Respondent.
_________________________
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Luis G. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his sons, Damean and Gabriel. Father contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his request to continue the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing until after the home study of the children's maternal grandparents had been completed. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2002, the Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a petition concerning Damean, who was then four years old, and Gabriel, who was then two years old. The petition was filed after their mother gave birth to a third child who was born with a positive toxicology for methamphetamine.[2] Damean and Gabriel were detained, the allegations of the petition were sustained, and the children were ultimately placed with their maternal grandparents in September 2004. During at least a portion of this time, father was incarcerated, and he had little contact with the children.
After both parents failed to reunify with the children, the department recommended adoption as the permanent plan. According to a status review report dated February 17, 2005, the maternal grandparents were â€
