In re Vanessa R.
Filed 7/11/06 In re Vanessa R. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re VANESSA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PHILLIP R., Defendant and Appellant. | E040247 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ004081) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert W. Nagby, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
M. Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
Phillip R. (father), the father of Vanessa R. (child) who is presently 14 years old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights. A second older daughter is now 18 years old and not the subject of this appeal. As to that daughter, the court ordered a plan of long-term foster care on October 3, 2005. She resides in the same foster home as the child along with two other daughters of the foster parents.
Father was arrested for killing his wife, the child's mother. There had been a long history of domestic disputes and violence between father and the child's mother, often in the presence of their daughters, and she had filed for a divorce. A petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g)[1] on January 11, 2005.
On March 7, 2005, a combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was conducted. Father was present in custody. The court sustained the petition, declared the child and her sister to be dependents, and removed them from father's custody. The court ordered that no reunification services be provided to father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), and it set a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) Father sought writ review of the court's orders and findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a).) We denied the petition on May 11, 2005. (Case No. E037632.)
A contested selection and implementation hearing was held on February 6, 2006. Father was present in custody. Her foster parents, with whom she had lived for a year, wanted to adopt Vanessa, and she testified that she understood that adoption would cut off her ties to her birth family. She wanted to be adopted by her foster parents. She understood that her sister would not be legally her sister anymore, and counsel for her and her sister represented to the court that the sister did not object to the adoption. The child testified that she was afraid of being reunited with her old family, including her paternal grandmother, â€
