In re H.J.

Filed 6/13/06 In re H.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(San Joaquin)

----

C.R. (appellant), the father of H.J. (minor), appeals the orders of the San Joaquin County Juvenile Court finding jurisdiction over the minor under Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support), and the dispositional orders made by the court. Appellant contends that the jurisdictional findings were improper in light of the mother's arrangement to place the minor with one of her friends.^[2] We reject this claim and affirm the orders of the juvenile court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The minor was born In October 2004, to J.J. (mother), who was on parole for a conviction for felony child endangerment resulting in the death of her son. The mother was subject to a parole condition that she not have any contact with the minor. Upon leaving the hospital, mother placed the minor with her friend, Monica. Mother had known Monica for about eight months, as they lived on different floors in the same hotel.

On October 21, 2004, a state parole officer reported that mother was with the minor in violation of her parole. Mother was arrested for the parole violation, and Child Protective Services (CPS) was called in and placed the minor in protective custody under section 300, subdivision (g). Mother named appellant as the alleged father, but could not provide his location. Appellant was eventually located, and paternity was established. The San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a petition with the Superior Court alleging that the minor was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). A detention hearing was held on October 26, 2004, and the minor was detained.

According to the jurisdictional/dispositional report, in May of 1994, the mother's son, N., was reported as testing positive for methamphetamines at birth. Mother later admitted to using methamphetamines during the last month of her pregnancy. In January of 1995, N. was killed by the mother's boyfriend, and her son C. was adjudicated a dependent of the juvenile court. Mother did not reunify, and a permanent plan of adoption was implemented in September of 1997. The report recommended no reunification with the mother, and setting a termination hearing under section 366.26.

The supplemental jurisdictional/dispositional report noted that appellant had a prior misdemeanor conviction under Penal Code section 647.6 (annoying or molesting a child). He is required to register as a sex offender and is subject to a probation condition that he have no contact with children. Appellant also had a prior conviction for failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290 subd. (a)(1)(A)). The report indicated that appellant planned to live with mother in a hotel room next to mother's friend, Monica, upon mother's release from prison.

While appellant had a very good relationship with his daughter, the report concluded that he was an extremely poor candidate for reunification with the minor. In addition to the prior convictions, the report also noted that appellant had unsafe associations at home, few resources, and an unwillingness or inability to supervise the minor. The report recommended allowing weekly visits by appellant if the no-contact order was removed. The report also stated that the only relative provided was the mother's grandmother, who could not accept the minor because of her age and health.

At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, mother testified that she planned a long-term placement with her friend, Michelle. Michelle testified that she did not want to take the minor until she had filed an application for guardianship over the minor. Monica, Michelle, and the mother agreed that Monica would keep the minor until the paperwork was done. The mother testified that appellant agreed to Michelle taking the minor.

The juvenile court rejected appellant's claim and sustained the petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). All parties submitted on the January 11, 2005, dispositional report, subject to minor corrections concerning appellant's paternity. The juvenile court made the findings and orders recommended in the January 11 report.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the court's finding that there was a substantial risk of physical harm to the minor is not supported by substantial evidence because the finding of danger is supported only by prior misconduct, and that any risk of danger was eliminated by the efforts to place the minor with either Monica or Michelle. The court's jurisdictional findings are reviewed for substantial evidence--that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value--to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924.)

Subdivision (b) of section 300 provides for jurisdiction where â€