In re T.N.
Filed 8/23/06 In re T.N. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| In re T.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187225 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK53454) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYRONE N., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joan Carney, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Affirmed.
Anna L. Ollinger, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory and Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Tyrone N. is the presumed father of T.N., a dependent of the juvenile court. Tyrone contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that T.N. is adoptable and denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] for an order modifying T.N.'s placement. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
T.N. was born to S.P. in September 2003.[2] Shortly after T.N.'s birth, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) learned that she had been admitted to a hospital for exposure to methamphetamines. She also suffered from low birth weight and an eye infection.
On September 17, 2003, DCFS filed a petition on T.N.'s behalf under section 300, alleging that S.P. had used drugs before and after T.N.'s birth, and Tyrone had a criminal conviction for spousal abuse.[3] On the same date, the juvenile court determined that Tyrone was T.N.'s presumed father, found that DCFS had shown a prima facie case for detaining T.N., and authorized her to be placed in shelter care. It ordered reunification services for Tyrone and S.P., and accorded them monitored visits with T.N. Shortly thereafter, T.N. was placed in a foster home.
In connection with the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, DCFS reported that T.N.'s eye infection potentially involved nerve damage, and arose from S.P.'s drug use and lack of prenatal care. DCFS further reported that Tyrone had initially resisted participation in reunification services. Subsequently, he told a DCFS social worker that his remarks were the product of exhaustion from work and other pressures. He said that he had enrolled in a parenting class, and â€
