In re Julia L.
Filed 6/1/06 In re Julia L. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re JULIA L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT L., Defendant and Appellant. | A111033 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. J186936) |
This dependency case presents us with the troubling situation of an alleged father, Robert L., who claims he was unconstitutionally denied notice of dependency proceedings involving his alleged minor daughter. He appeals from a juvenile court order denying his petition for modification filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] and terminating his parental rights. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Julia L. was born in May 2001, with severe congenital defects including an imperforated anus, a missing kidney and an extra toe. On March 21, 2003, the staff at Children's Hospital in Oakland contacted the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) with concerns that Julia's mother (Mother) was unable to care for her. The staff was concerned because Julia was about to be released from the hospital and required very consistent and diligent care to prevent a serious infection. Mother missed out-patient appointments, attended one appointment smelling of alcohol, appeared at another with a black eye attributed to her partner, only intermittently complied with Julia's care regimen and failed to complete training to learn to care for her daughter.
The Agency filed a dependency petition on March 26, 2003, amended May 7, 2003, alleging that Julia was at risk due to Mother's history of domestic violence and failing to care for her special medical needs. The petition listed Michael S. as Julia's alleged father. Mother told the Agency that Michael S. was the father, but said she did not tell him about the pregnancy and did not want him to know about the detention hearing. His whereabouts were unknown.
Julia was ordered detained. On May 7, 2003, the court found the allegations of the amended petitions true, approved Julia's foster placement, and ordered reunification services for Mother. Julia was in a foster home where she has continued to thrive throughout the dependency proceedings. The foster parents have encouraged contact between Julia and her mother and sister, and wish to adopt Julia if parental rights are terminated.
Mother consistently identified Michael S. as Julia's father and appellant as the father of Julia's older sister, Victoria. According to an August 6, 2003, review report, Mother said she had not seen Michael S. since she was two months pregnant with Julia. She reported that appellant was released from jail in July 2003, that she had not lived with him for three years, and that she did not intend to live with him again. She planned to allow appellant to visit his daughter Victoria â€
