In re J.C.

Filed 1/23/07  In re J.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.  David Cohn, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            No appearance for Minor.

            G.C. (father), the father of J.C. (child), who presently is one year old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights.  The child's mother is not a party to this appeal.

FACTS

            In December 2005, the child's 19-year-old mother gave birth to him in the shower of the home that she shared with her mother, her stepfather (the child's father),^[1] and younger half siblings.  She had kept her pregnancy a secret.  At the time of the child's birth, the maternal grandmother was at work, but the child's father was at home.  The mother cut the umbilical cord with a pair of scissors, but did not clamp or tie off the child's umbilical cord.  Mother then stabbed the child numerous times.  During the investigation she told police personnel that she intended to kill the child.  Medical personnel estimated the number of stab and slash wounds to the torso and flanks of the child at 30.

            The wounded child was wrapped in a towel and placed on a bed.  The father delayed about two hours in calling 911 for emergency help, and he threw away the scissors at a different location.  He would later show the police where he disposed of the scissors.  They were recovered and taken as evidence.

            When emergency medical personnel arrived, the child was blue and cold.  He was near death and needed resuscitation on the way to the hospital.  Mother admitted that she had given birth in the shower and claimed that the child's injuries were caused by her dropping the child in the shower after she had cut the umbilical cord.  She told investigators that the father was a person named Mark.  She did not know his last name.  She denied sexual relations with her stepfather.

            At the hospital the child underwent many surgeries and other medical procedures.  He needed CPR and other resuscitation measures many times.  One lung and his liver were lacerated.  Both lungs collapsed due to hemorrhaging.  He had trouble breathing.  During his hospitalization, a section of necrotic bowel had to be removed.

            Miraculously, the child survived and was released from the hospital after a two-month stay.  He has made remarkable progress, but currently the extent of his long-term physical deficits is still not known.  The reports submitted into evidence indicate concern regarding his hearing, his sight, and mental retardation due to lack of oxygen to the brain, among other possible deficits and medical problems.

            Mother was charged with attempted murder and child endangerment.  Father was also charged with child endangerment and accessory.  Both were in custody during the various court proceedings.

PROCEDURAL FACTS

            On January 3, 2006,^[2] the Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition on behalf of the child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e) and (g).^[3]

            A jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was ultimately held on March 28, 2006.  The petition was amended by interlineation.  No affirmative evidence was presented.  The court received into evidence reports prepared for the hearing.  The court sustained the petition and found the child came within section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e) and (g).  The court then declared the child a dependent of the court and took custody from the parents.  The child was ordered into foster care.  The court further ordered that neither parent receive reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6).  The court set the cause for a selection and implementation hearing.  (§ 366.26.)

            The court orally notified mother and father in open court of their right to seek writ review of the court's orders and findings.  (Former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a), now rule 8.452(a).)  Father did not seek writ review.

            The selection and implementation hearing was ultimately held on September 1, 2006.  Mother and father were again present in custody.  No affirmative evidence was presented.  The cause was submitted on the reports prepared for the hearing.  The adoption assessment report indicated that the child had been living for many months with a foster couple who were committed to adopting him despite his medical problems and deficits.  The couple has a natural child who is mentally retarded, and they already regard the child as a member of the family.  The court found that the child was adoptable and terminated the parental rights of mother and father.

            Father has appealed, and at his request we appointed counsel to represent him.  Counsel has filed a no-issue brief under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  It sets forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and asks this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

            We provided father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

            We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

            The judgment is affirmed.

            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/  McKinster                      

                                                J.

We concur:

/s/  Hollenhorst                    

                              Acting P.J.

/s/  Richli                              

                                             J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

            ^[1] The stepfather's paternity was established by DNA testing late in the course of the dependency.  He had denied paternity at the outset of the proceedings.

            ^[2] The child was born in late December 2005.  The filing stamp on the petition erroneously reads:  â€