Kenneth W. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 7/6/06 Kenneth W. v. Super. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| KENNETH W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. |
F050252
(Super. Ct. No. JJV059976B)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Juvenile Court Referee.
Kenneth W., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Bryan Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitione, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his daughter A. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is an inmate in state prison, scheduled to be released from custody in January 2009. He is also the alleged father of A., who, in August 2005 at the age of one year, was taken into protective custody by the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency because of her mother's substance abuse.
The juvenile court adjudged A. a dependent of the court (§ 300, subd. (b)) and, at the dispositional hearing in October 2005, ordered reunification services for A.'s mother. A. was placed in the care of her maternal great-aunt who had taken care of her since birth and who wanted to adopt her if reunification efforts failed.
Over the next six months, A.'s mother failed to make any progress in her service plan. Consequently, the court terminated her services at the six-month review hearing in April 2006 and set a section 366.26 hearing scheduled for August 4, 2006.
DISCUSSION
I. Petitioner fails to establish that the attorney representing him at
the detention hearing had a conflict of interest.
At the detention hearing on August 24, 2005, a stand-by attorney accepted appointment on behalf of the attorney who represented petitioner and appeared on his behalf throughout the dependency proceedings. Petitioner argues the stand-by attorney had a conflict of interest. However, the appellate record does not support his claim. Consequently, his claim of error must fail. (Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 72 [appellant has a burden to affirmatively show error on the record].)
II. The juvenile court did not violate petitioner's right to due
process by conducting the dependency hearings in his absence.
Petitioner was not ordered transported to any of the dependency hearings under review and the juvenile court conducted the hearings in his absence. He claims this was prejudicial error. We disagree.
Penal Code section 2625 governs an incarcerated parent's right to be present during dependency proceedings and states, in pertinent part:
â€
