In re William W. and A.G.
Filed 8/24/06 In re William W. and A.G. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re WILLIAM W. and A. G., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
RANDALL G., Petitioner, v. MENDOCINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent. ___________________________________ MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
|
A114411
(Mendocino County Super. Ct. Nos. SCUK-JVSQ-04-14219-01 and SCUK-JVSQ-04-14220-01)
|
Petitioner Randall G. challenges the juvenile court orders terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court findings, and we deny the petition and the request for stay of the October 11, 2006 hearing.
Factual and Procedural Background
On December 29, 2004, the Mendocino County Department of Social Services filed petitions alleging that William W., age 11, A.G., age 4, and Kendall R., age 21 months, were minors within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (g), and (j), and that the children were members of the Yurok Tribe.[1] The juvenile court ordered the children detained.
William and A. are Randall's biological children. Kendall, who is not Randall's biological child, is not a subject of the petition in this court. Before detention, the children were living with Randall and his mother. The children's mother left them with Randall and her whereabouts were unknown.
In setting forth the factual background we are governed by the appellate standard of review. We review the juvenile court order to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.) We view the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the court. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)
Jurisdiction and Disposition
After a contested jurisdictional hearing in March 2005, the Court found true the Department's allegations that Randall â€
