Robert H. v. Superior Court
Filed 7/21/06 Robert H. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| ROBERT H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, Respondent, TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. |
F050341
(Super. Ct. Nos. JV5968, JV5969, & JV5970)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. William G. Polley, Judge.
Patrick M. Angermiller, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, Sarah Carrillo and Laurel Prager, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 12-month status review hearing terminating petitioner's reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his children T., B. and C. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner and Linda[2] are the parents of two daughters, M. and B., and two sons, T. and C. In addition, Linda has several older children. Petitioner and Linda are not strangers to the dependency process. The appellate record reflects referrals to the social services department (department) dating back to 1985 and periodically thereafter alleging general child neglect and endangerment, physical, emotional and sexual abuse of the children and domestic violence. In June 2003, the juvenile court sustained allegations that petitioner and Linda emotionally abused then twelve-year-old M., four-year-old T., three-year-old B., and 10-month-old C. and allowed sexual molesters access to them. The children remained in Linda's custody under family maintenance and the court ordered reunification services for petitioner.
In December 2004, during the ongoing dependency proceedings, M. disclosed that petitioner sexually molested her when she was five or six years of age. She also remembered seeing him molest B. when B. was two years old. As petitioner was not living in the home, the referral was handled by law enforcement. There is no evidence on the record that he was ever charged or convicted of child molestation.
In January 2005, after 18 months of services, the juvenile court terminated dependency and granted Linda sole legal and physical custody of the children. Further, because of the unresolved allegations of sexual abuse, the court limited petitioner to supervised visitation with T., B., and C.
The instant case arose in March 2005 after then two-year-old C. was found for the second time in a month wandering in the middle of a busy highway. At the time, Linda and the children (M., T., B., and C.) were living with Linda's 19-year-old son S., Linda's adult daughter C.G. and C.G.'s husband J., and C.G. and J.'s three small children.
The department removed T., B., and C. and filed dependency petitions on their behalf, alleging Linda failed to provide adequate supervision, shelter and clothing and that petitioner was unable to provide care for them. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The juvenile court ordered the children detained and set the jurisdictional hearing for March 22, 2005.
On March 14, 2005, during a supervised visit between petitioner and the children, T. spontaneously stated that J. licked his, B. and C.'s â€
