In re Serina M.

Filed 9/29/06 In re Serina M. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.

Joanne D. Willis Newton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

J.M. (Father) appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights as to his three children, eight-year-old Serina M., seven-year-old A.M., and three-year-old Y.M. We find no error and will affirm the judgment.

In October 2004, the children came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) when a child abuse report was received alleging caretaker absence. Father had been arrested for having sex with a 13-year-old, and it was reported that Father had sexually abused three minors, having given them mind-altering substances to facilitate sex with them. One of the minors stated that while she was high she remembered having sex with Father while Y.M. was awake and watching from his crib.

Prior to DPSS’s arrival, the paternal grandmother, who had been tipped off by Father’s girlfriend, had picked up the children. The social worker noted the home to be infested with cockroaches and discovered the children had been cared for by a woman who had lost custody of her own children. This woman appeared disheveled and slurred her speech when she spoke. Police found substances and paraphernalia used to get high in the home as described by the minors, as well as sexually explicit material. The social worker contacted the paternal grandmother and took the children into protective custody.

The following day, the children’s mother (Mother) contacted the social worker, admitted having a drug problem, and agreed to have inpatient drug treatment services. She also stated that Father began having sex with her when she was 13 years old.

On October 12, 2004, DPSS filed section 300 petitions on behalf on the child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d).^[1]

At the detention hearing, the court adopted the findings noted in the detention report and detained the children in a confidential foster home. The court ordered reunification services for both parents and ordered supervised visitation for the parents upon an assessment of the children.

The family had previously been involved in voluntary family maintenance from January to August 2000 after a referral alleging physical abuse of A.M. by Mother. A child abuse report was also received in September 2003 alleging general neglect due to Mother’s substance abuse. Father had a lengthy criminal history from 1997 to October 2004, for numerous allegations, including lewd acts upon a minor, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and sexual assault on a minor. In addition, he had a history of engaging in sexual relationships with children under the age 18: he first had sexual intercourse with Mother when she was 12 years old, and with his current girlfriend when she was 16 years old. As of November 2004, Father was incarcerated for sexually abusing more than one minor under the age of 14, including charges for rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16, lewd acts upon a minor under the age of 14, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Mother had a recent history of abusing methamphetamine.

At the November 3, 2004, dispositional/jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petitions true and declared the children dependents of the court. The court ordered reunification services to Mother. The court did not order services to Father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e), as his potential term of incarceration would exceed the reunification period and services would be detrimental to the children.

At the April 26, 2005, six month review hearing, the court ordered the children released to Mother subject to the supervision of DPSS due to her compliance with and progress in her case plan, and it placed the matter into family maintenance. The court also ordered that Father, who was present and in custody, was to have no visitation pending further order of the court.

On September 29, 2005, DPSS filed a section 387 supplemental petition on behalf of the children on the grounds that Mother had failed to comply with her family maintenance plan. Father had been convicted on the sex-related charges and sentenced to state prison. At the detention hearing on the supplemental petition, the children were removed from Mother’s custody, and a jurisdictional hearing was set.

In a jurisdictional/dispositional report dated October 19, 2005, the social worker noted Mother’s unwillingness to adhere to her family maintenance plan. It was also reported the children were happy being cared for by their maternal grandmother, and both the maternal aunt and grandmother indicated that they did not believe Mother really wanted her children in her care. The maternal grandmother and the paternal grandparents were willing to adopt the children should reunification fail; the paternal grandparents requested a family meeting to discuss the children’s best interests. The social worker recommended terminating Mother’s services and setting a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing. A combined contested six-month family maintenance review hearing and jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition was held on November 17, 2005. As to the section 387 petition, the court found the children came within section 387 and denied services to Mother pursuant to section 361.5. As to the review hearing on the original petition, the court terminated reunification services, ordered adoption as the permanent plan for the children, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court also authorized telephone and written contact with the children for Father. Father was scheduled to be released from prison in 2009.

In a section 366.26 report, the social worker noted the children were “very bonded” to their maternal grandmother, with whom they continued to reside. The maternal grandmother was willing and able to provide the children with permanency, stability, and a safe environment. The paternal relatives also agreed that the children should remain with the maternal grandmother based on her relationship with them. At the section 366.26 hearings, neither parent introduced affirmative evidence. The court received the social worker’s reports into evidence; following argument, the court, finding the children adoptable, terminated parental rights.

Father appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth an integrated statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have invited Father with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P.J.

KING

J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

^[1] All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.