In re R.P.

Filed 6/21/06 In re R.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)

----

Appellant John P., father of the minor, appeals from an order continuing the minor as a dependent of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 395.)^[1] He contends the juvenile court erred when it dismissed his counsel without appointing new counsel. We agree, and will vacate the order and direct the juvenile court to appoint counsel for appellant and to hold a new hearing.

BACKGROUND

The minor was taken into protective custody in December 2003 -- two days after his birth -- because appellant and the minor's mother had engaged in a verbal altercation at the hospital. The Alameda County Social Services Department (Department) was concerned for the minor's well-being because the mother had a recent psychiatric hospital history and the family had not followed through with previously offered voluntary services to address domestic violence issues. Appellant had a 2003 misdemeanor conviction for inflicting injury upon the mother's older child (who subsequently moved to Japan to live with her father).

The minor was returned to his parent's custody on January 8, 2004. The section 300 petition was sustained after an uncontested hearing, and on January 29, 2004, the minor was adjudged a dependent of the court. The juvenile court ordered the minor to remain placed with the parents, ordered family maintenance services, and scheduled a three-month review hearing to determine whether dependency should be dismissed.

The Department's April 28, 2004, review hearing report recommended dependency be dismissed. The Department reported that the parents had complied with the maintenance plan, appellant was the primary caretaker, and there were no current safety concerns. Although both parents had attended 11 counseling sessions and the mother had attended a psychological appointment, they had not signed the necessary forms to authorize the release of information about their counseling sessions. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to permit the parents to sign the appropriate forms.

Appellant did not sign the release forms. Thus, on May 26, 2004, the Department retracted its recommendation that dependency be dismissed. The Department recommended appellant participate in anger management classes and recommended the parents participate in additional couples therapy. The hearing was continued to get a different Japanese interpreter and to receive a report on the parents' couples therapy.

The parents' counselor reported that the parents did not think they needed counseling, that appellant thought the Department was being unfairly accusatory, and that appellant was controlling and hostile. The juvenile court found that counseling had been unproductive and ordered additional services (including psychological evaluations, separate counseling for the mother, further couple's counseling, and anger management for appellant).

On June 10, 2004, appellant reported that he and his wife had moved to Sacramento, but they had not yet provided the Department with their new address by the time the social worker prepared the July 12, 2004, progress report. The report noted there was no indication of any case plan compliance for the previous month.

A contested six-month review hearing was held on August 25, 2004. The social worker reported that the minor was doing well in the home, although there was some concern regarding bonding. Due to the parents' recent behavior, the social worker did not recommend dismissal of the dependency. The social worker explained: â€