In re S.W.

Filed 10/18/06 In re S.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 San Bernardino County. James C. McGuire, Judge. Affirmed.

Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minor.

Sherman W. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22.^[1]

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (the Department) in October 2004 when then 13-year-old S.W. had bruises on her right cheek and arm when she went to school. She stated that Father had hit her during a confrontation. S.W. had lived with Father and her paternal grandmother since she was six years old. On October 22, 2004, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging the child came within the jurisdiction of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). At the detention hearing, the court found that a prima facie case had been established for detention of the child outside the home.

The jurisdiction/disposition report noted that the mother claimed that Father had a temper and would hit her and her son. The mother has a history with the Department for failure to protect. In 1997, she was advised to prevent contact between Father and her children due to a history of physical and sexual abuse allegations against Father. Father denied hitting S.W. and the incident. Instead, he claimed that S.W. had lied. At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing in December 2004, Father testified. He denied hitting S.W.; instead, he claimed that she had gotten into a fight while coming home from school, but her mother told her to accuse Father of causing the injuries. Pictures of S.W.’s injuries were introduced into evidence. The court found the allegations in the petition to be true and removed the child from Father’s custody. The court ordered supervised/monitored visitation for Father, a minimum of once per week, and gave the Department the authority to liberalize it in frequency, duration and to unsupervised visitation. Father was ordered to participate in the approved reunification plan. The reunification plan required Father to participate in counseling, a parenting education program and an anger management class. However, he refused to sign it.

At the six-month review hearing, Father was present and in custody. He had not participated in his reunification plan and had not visited S.W. since she was removed in October 2004. Father had some telephone contact with her. S.W. was having full-day visits with the paternal grandmother. Father did not want to meet with the social worker and refused the social worker’s referrals. The court continued reunification services and set the matter for a 12-month review hearing.

At the 12-month review hearing, Father was still in custody at the West Valley Detention Center. The Department recommended that the court adopt long-term foster care as the permanent plan. Father continued to refuse to speak to the social worker; however, after the hearing the social worker was able to give him referrals for services. The court continued reunification services and set the matter for an 18-month review.

Father remained incarcerated until December 18, 2005. At the time of the 18-month review hearing, he had not initiated any reunification services. On June 22, 2006, Father asked the court to return S.W. to his custody. The court denied Father’s request, finding that it would not be safe or beneficial to the child. The court found that Father had failed to complete the court ordered treatment plan, and thus, terminated reunification services and ordered that all previous orders not in conflict remain in full force and effect. The matter was continued to December 22, 2006, for further permanent placement hearing.

DISCUSSION

Father has appealed, and at his request, we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under 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, setting forth an integrated statement of the case and facts, and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.^[2]

We provided Father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done.^[3]

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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI

J.

MILLER

J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.

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

^[2] Counsel questions whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that return of the child to Father would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physical and/or emotional well-being of the child.

^[3] Father believes that he has been denied a “substantial right” under both the state and federal Constitutions. He further claims to have been “prejudiced” and denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. Finally, he requests that his trial counsel be “held in contempt and/or repremanded [sic].”