In re A.R.

Filed 1/31/07  In re A.R. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            This appeal is brought by the father of three dependent children.  He seeks reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating his visitation with the two older children following his incarceration.  For reasons explained below, we affirm the challenged order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            This dependency proceeding involves three siblings:  A.R., a girl born in April 2002; L.R., a boy born in January 2004; and T.W.R., a boy born in August 2005.  This appeal concerns only the older two children.  We therefore mention the youngest child only as relevant to the procedural background of the case.  The parents of all three children are Stacey C. (the mother) and appellant James R. (the father). 

Dependency Petitions; Jurisdiction; Detention

            In late July 2005, petitions were filed on behalf of A.R. and L.R. by the Santa Cruz Human Resources Agency (Agency).  The petitions asserted that the parents had failed to protect the children.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)[1]  As factual support for the petitions, the Agency asserted that the father screamed at the children and threatened to kill them; that he had also threatened to kill the mother; and that he had substance abuse and anger management problems.  The shelter where the mother and children were staying refused to admit the father until he completed an anger management program. 

            The juvenile court detained both children, but it did not remove them from their parents' physical custody.  The Agency recommended that the children remain in the parents' custody. 

            In early August 2005, baby T.W.R. was born.  Medically fragile, he was placed in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit.  The Agency filed a petition on his behalf the following month, alleging that the father had threatened to remove T.W.R. from the hospital against medical advice, which could put the baby at risk of death.  The juvenile court detained baby T.W.R. and ordered visits for the parents as often as allowed by the hospital.  In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency recommended that T.W.R. remain out of the parents' custody and that family reunification services be provided.  The parents later submitted on the Agency's report, and the court adopted its recommendations. 

            A jurisdictional hearing for A.R. and L.R., originally set for August 2005, was heard on November 30, 2005.  At the November hearing, the mother submitted on the Agency's jurisdiction/disposition report.  The father was in custody and was not transported for the hearing.  The court assumed jurisdiction, adopted the recommendations in the Agency's report, and ordered family maintenance services.  The court set a review hearing for March 2006. 

Modification

            On January 25, 2006, the Agency filed a petition seeking modification of the father's visitation with A.R. and L.R.  (§ 388.)  The father was then incarcerated in Santa Clara County jail, awaiting trial on felony charges, including sex crimes against minors.  As the Agency's petition noted, there was no visitation order for A.R. and L.R. then in place, since they had not been removed from parental custody.  The Agency sought a â€