In re J.P.
Filed 8/15/06 In re J.P. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B190165 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK58513) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Jan G. Levine, Judge. Affirmed.
Harry Zimmerman and Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants.
Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, and Joseph Langton, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Jordan P. and Maria M. have appealed from a trial court order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, terminating their parental rights to their son J.P.
We appointed counsel to represent appellants on appeal. As to each parent, counsel informed us that he or she was unable to file an opening brief on the merits, and also informed us that he or she had informed the client of the intent to file such a brief and provided the client with a copy of the appellate record. We informed each parent of the right to file a brief or letter. Father responded with a letter brief in which he writes of his desire to raise his daughter, apparently referring to the dependency case concerning his older child with Mother, a girl. Mother did not respond.
The facts may be briefly stated: the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed a few days after J. was born, on March 22, 2005, on allegations concerning Mother's drug use and her failure to reunify with her older children, one of whom was a child with this father, Father's failure to reunify with that child, and domestic violence between the parents. On May 2, the petition was sustained under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). For Father, reunification services were ordered; parent education and individual counseling to address anger management and domestic violence.
No reunification services were ordered for Mother, after the court made a finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11), based on her failure to reunify with her older children and failure to address the problems which led to their removal.
Father was arrested in April, and in July, pled no contest to elder abuse. He was released from custody in December.
At the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) review hearing, held on October 31, 2005, family reunification services were terminated for Father, on a finding that he had only partially complied with his case plan. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing was set. The hearing was held in April 2006. DCFS recommended adoption with the foster mother who had cared for J. since birth. Father testified that he had weekly visits with J. since his release from custody. For each visit, he bought his son toys and clothes, and during the visits, he played with his child and fed him.
We have thoroughly examined the record, and find substantial evidence for the trial court order terminating Mother's rights.
We also find substantial evidence for the order terminating Father's right. At the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, on a finding that it is likely the child will be adopted, the court must terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption unless "the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the listed reasons concerns parental visits, but under the legal standard, the parent must show that the child would be "greatly harmed" by termination of visits. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466-467.) There is substantial evidence in the record for the trial court's decision that this was not such a case.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
