In re Richard R.
Filed 5/23/06 In re Richard R. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
In re RICHARD R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B183686 (Super. Ct. No. CK17434) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD R. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed as to Richard R. Toni M.'s appeal dismissed as moot.
Deborah Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Richard R.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Toni M.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________________
Richard R. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's order denying his request for unmonitored visitation with his three children and reducing his visitation from weekly to twice a month. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Toni M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order denying her request to increase her visitation from monthly to weekly. Based on events occurring after the juvenile court issued its order, we dismiss mother's appeal as moot.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In May 1995, father and mother's twin girls, Amber R. and Anisa R., were born. In the hospital, mother had a positive toxicology screen for methamphetamines and amphetamines. Richard R., father and mother's son, was about one and a half years old at the time.
In June 1995, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.[1] The three children were placed with their maternal grandmother. In July, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition based on an allegation about mother's drug use. Father submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
In August, the juvenile court declared the three children dependents of the court and allowed them to remain in the home of their grandmother. The court ordered mother to participate in drug counseling and random drug testing and granted her monitored visitation with the children. In the event father wanted the children released to him, the court ordered DCFS to do it or file a petition within two days. The children were not released to father and DCFS did not file a petition concerning father (at or around that time).
The children lived with their maternal grandmother for nearly six years. Mother visited the children regularly during this time. In March 1996, DCFS learned father was serving a prison sentence and he expected to be released in May 1997. In December 1996, the juvenile court ordered the children to be placed in long-term foster care with their grandmother, as mother was failing to comply with her case plan. By June 1997, DCFS reported mother and father were living together. Mother was visiting the children daily in the grandmother's home. Father visited the children in May and June after his release from prison. In December 1998, DCFS reported mother and father had not been in â€
