In re M.D.
Filed 8/22/06 In re M.D. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| In re M.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID D., Objector and Appellant. | A112849 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J05-01152) |
In September 2005, minor teenager, M.D., was removed from her parents' custody after their plea of no contest to allegations that their history of domestic violence was causing harm to her.[1] (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] § 300, subds. (a), (b) & (c).) David D. (Father) purports to appeal (§ 395) from a finding of the juvenile court after the six-month review hearing that reasonable reunification services had been provided. (§§ 366.21, subd. (e) & 366, subd. (a)(1)(B).)[3] He contends that the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (CFS) unreasonably denied visitation with his daughter. Father, however, makes no challenge to any other findings or orders entered by the court at the hearing. We dismiss the appeal.
The visitation order at issue was entered at the disposition hearing (§ 358) and provided for a minimum of two visits per month. Because of the minor's severe psychological problems, the order also directed that CFS consider the minor's wishes, as well as input from her attorney and treating therapist, in setting the frequency and details of the visits. At the six-month review hearing, CFS presented evidence that the minor did not want to visit with her parents at all, and that forcing such visits would have been detrimental to her.
Father acknowledges as he must that â€
