In re L.G.
Filed 6/5/06 In re L.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 L.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID C., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050461
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD221699, JD221700)
|
David C., father of the minor L.G. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at the six-month review hearing.[1] (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (e), 395.) Appellant contends substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding reasonable services were provided. We shall dismiss the appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The minor was detained at birth in January 2005, due to the mother's methamphetamine use. Appellant was in custody at the time. The court ordered paternity testing.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the mother to participate in services but did not order services for appellant because paternity had not yet been established. The court further ordered that there be no contact between the minor and appellant, her alleged father. In April 2005, testing established appellant was the biological father of the minor. The social worker developed a service plan for appellant.
According to the six-month review report, appellant was still in custody. The social worker had spoken to him, provided a copy of the service plan and encouraged him to participate in counseling, parenting and substance abuse treatment services if available in jail. The report stated appellant had access to services and told the social worker he was participating in the available services. Appellant had not visited the minor due to his custody status and did not have a projected release date. At the review hearing, the court found reasonable services were provided or offered to appellant and ordered an additional six months of reunification.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends he did not receive reasonable services because he did not have visits with the minor and the social worker's report is unclear about what services he had engaged in. He also argues that delay in providing services prejudiced his ability to begin participation and to reunify. Appellant further argues the issue is not moot. We disagree with the latter assertion.
â€
