In re Jasmine V.
Filed 7/20/06 In re Jasmine V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 JASMINE V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CELIA R. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E039603 (Super.Ct.No. J195785) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David S. Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Celia R.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jeremy V.
Dennis E. Wagner, Interim County Counsel, and Julie J. Surber, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
INTRODUCTION
Celia R. (mother) and Jeremy V. (father) challenge the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, Jasmine V. They contend reversal is required because they were not provided with notice of the rescheduled Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing at which the order was made. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
When Jasmine was born in June 2004, both she and mother tested positive for amphetamines. Jasmine was detained, along with her two-year-old brother, Jeremiah, and her six-year-old half-sister, M.B., neither of whom is involved in this appeal.[2] In July 2004, Jasmine was placed in the home of a distant maternal relative; a year later, she was moved to the home of a couple who is also distantly related to mother, where she currently resides. A dependency petition filed June 23, 2004, alleged that mother and father have substance abuse problems which negatively impact their ability to parent their children. The petition further alleged that mother and father are unable to provide suitable housing, food and necessary medical attention for their children.
The family had an extensive history of previous contacts with DCS. For example, when Jeremiah was born in 2002 and tested positive for amphetamines, the parents were offered voluntary family maintenance services, which they refused. The parents were also provided with substance abuse counseling referrals on at least three occasions, but they failed to participate. In January 2003, DCS received a referral that the children had been left alone in a car. Although this allegation was not confirmed, the home was found to be dirty, cluttered, and containing knives and cleaning chemicals within the children's reach. In May 2004, when DCS investigated another referral, the home had no electricity, no fresh food, and a non-flushing toilet. A month later, the home still did not have electricity or a working toilet.
At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on July 30, 2004, father was declared Jasmine's presumed father. The court found the allegations of the petition to be true and ordered reunification services for the parents. The court cautioned the parents that, because Jasmine was under three years of age, services would be terminated at the next hearing unless they made substantial progress on their reunification plans.
At the six-month review hearing in March 2005, the court did in fact terminate services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for July 18, 2005. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that return of the children to their parents would create a substantial risk of detriment and that the parents had not made substantial progress with their programs. The court provided for the parents to continue to have weekly supervised visitation and also informed them of their writ rights. On July 18, 2005, the matter was continued to July 28 for a contested hearing. Both parents were present on July 28; however, at the request of Jasmine's attorney, the hearing was continued to November 28, 2005.
When neither parent appeared on November 28, 2005, the court and counsel engaged in the following colloquy:
â€
