A.H. v. Super. Ct.


Filed 6/1/11 A.H. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

A.H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

E053168 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1100140) OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Matthew C. Perantoni, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Anastasia M. Georggin for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner A.H. (father) is the father of X.H., born earlier this year and detained shortly after birth. In this writ petition, father challenges the juvenile court's orders denying him reunification services and setting a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing for July 13, 2011. As discussed below, we cannot find that the juvenile court abused its discretion. This is because: 1) father made no effort until very recently to seek treatment for the problems that caused the removal of X.H.'s brother in 2001; and 2) it is not in X.H.'s best interest to pursue reunification with father because father plans to establish a family with X.H.'s mother, who was convicted of killing X.H.'s half sister in 2001.
Facts and Procedures
Hospital staff notified the Riverside Department of Public Social Services (department) soon after X.H. was born in late January 2011. X.H. was born healthy and full term, but her mother (mother) disclosed to hospital staff that mother had two children previously, one of whom had died in 2001after being assaulted, and another who resides with relatives. Mother identified father as X.H.'s father.
An investigation revealed that mother had been convicted of murdering her 16-month-old child, D.R., in 2001, for which she was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. The autopsy showed that D.R. had been severely abused--she had numerous broken ribs and a lacerated liver and pancreas. D.R. had bled to death internally. The medical examiner concluded that the injuries were caused by massive blunt force to the abdomen.
Mother and father had an intimate relationship in 1997 and/or 1998, and they learned mother was pregnant with father's child, M.H., either before or just after they broke up. Shortly thereafter, mother married another man, a Mr. Ramirez, who agreed to raise M.H. as his own. Mother and Mr. Ramirez then had D.R., whom mother beat to death in August 2001.^[1] Father was not involved in M.H.'s life until M.H. was removed in August 2001 after D.R.'s death. At that time, father was offered weekly supervised visitation with M.H., but father did not visit M.H. Father was termed an alleged father, and later the biological father, and was not offered reunification services.
After serving approximately eight years in prison, mother accepted a deal to reduce the charges to voluntary manslaughter and was released on parole a few months later, in November 2009. Mother and father resumed their intimate relationship in January 2010. Mother and father hoped to get married when mother's divorce from Mr. Ramirez was final, and wanted to raise a family together.
The detention hearing was held on February 3, 2011, at which the juvenile court found a prima facie case to detain X.H.
The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on March 15, 2011. The Department recommended denying reunification services to father under Welfare & Institutions Code, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11),^[2] because he had previously lost parental rights to X.H's brother, M.H. The Department entered into evidence the amended section 300 petition filed on February 22, 2011, the detention report filed on February 2, the jurisdiction and disposition report filed on February 24, and the addendum filed on March 10.
At the March 15 hearing, father testified that he had met with the social worker about two weeks prior to receive referrals for services. Since then he had completed three sessions of individual counseling, enrolled in a parenting class and completed two sessions of conjoint counseling. He had also visited weekly with X.H. and had only missed one visit because he did not want to pass on his cold to the infant. Father was present for X.H.'s birth and was named on the birth certificate. He had given money to mother to purchase items to prepare for X.H.'s arrival.
Father testified that he had fathered a total of seven children, and that he paid child support for all except for M.H., who had been adopted after father lost parental rights. He testified that his 17-year-old daughter lives in Fullerton and had stayed with him a few times on the weekends, most recently the previous week. Father has two children, ages 13 and 7, who live in Anaheim and with whom he does not have much contact because their mother, â€