Filed 10/4/17 In re A.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed.

Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.S. (father).

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

E.S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 [section 366.26 hearing], all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institution Code unless otherwise noted) to his son A.S. (born in November 2015). He argues the court erred in denying a request to continue the section 366.26 hearing until this court decided a prior appeal by father and a maternal relative from the juvenile court’s order declining to move A.S. from his foster home to the maternal relative’s home in Colorado. We affirmed that order in a now final opinion filed June 26, 2017. (In re A.S. (June 26, 2017, G054288) [nonpub. opn.].) Our review of this appeal discloses no basis to reverse the court’s order terminating parental rights.

I

Facts and Procedural Background

In late November 2015, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) took A.S. into protective custody following his birth.[1] SSA’s petition alleged there was a substantial risk he would suffer serious physical harm resulting from his parents’ failure or inability to protect him, or to provide him with regular care due to substance abuse. Mother had received no prenatal care, used methamphetamine the day before her hospital admission, and admitted she recently had used heroin. A.S. tested positive for marijuana at birth. Mother acknowledged using methamphetamine and heroin since the age of 21, but was not interested in drug treatment. Both she and father had extensive drug and theft-related criminal histories. Both parents were chronically homeless, but had no interest residing in a shelter. SSA removed another infant (born September 2008) from mother’s care in August 2009 after she left him with unrelated parolee drug users. That child resided with his father, who had full legal and physical custody.

The parents submitted to the jurisdictional allegations. The social worker referred the parents to various services, including parenting, counseling, drug testing and substance abuse treatment, and encouraged them to enroll in these programs. Father felt he did not require substance abuse treatment. At the disposition hearing, the court offered reunification services for father, but none for mother based on her substance abuse history and resistance to prior court-ordered treatment (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13)). The court denied father’s request to remove the substance abuse component of his case plan, and scheduled a six-month review hearing for August 3, 2016.

A.S.’s parents failed to submit to drug testing and visited inconsistently. In advance of the review hearing, the social worker recommended terminating reunification services for father. The parents visited A.S. infrequently, and when they did the foster agency worker reported concerns they were under the influence of drugs. The parents continued to reside in the homeless encampment and father had failed to comply with any component of the case plan. He insisted he had been treated unfairly and the child should not have been taken from him. The social worker initiated a permanency planning assessment in July. The adoptions unit determined adoption was likely given A.S.’s characteristics and attributes.

Following a hearing concluding in November 2016, the juvenile court denied the Colorado relatives’ request for custody, and father and the maternal relative subsequently appealed from that order. The juvenile court terminated father’s reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing.[2] In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker reported A.S. had no health issues and his development was on track, except for some delay in expressive language. Neither parent requested visits after the court terminated father’s reunification services, nor did they attend the section 366.26 hearing held on March 6, 2017. The court denied parents’ counsel’s request to continue the section 366.26 hearing based on the pending appeal from the placement order. The parents did not cross-examine the social worker or present evidence concerning the section 366.26 issues. The court found it likely A.S would be adopted, and no exceptions to termination parental rights existed. Father timely appealed.

II

Discussion

Denial of Continuance

Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his request to continue the section 366.26 hearing pending this court’s decision on appeal from the order addressing the relative placement issue. The juvenile court found no good cause to continue the hearing and denied the request. (See § 352 [court may continue any hearing beyond the time limit specified on a showing of good unless contrary to the interest of the minor; court shall give substantial weight to the need to provide the child with a stable environment]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065 [trial court order denying continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion].) On appeal, father expresses concern the “subsequent order terminating parental rights” might “moot the issue presented in the prior appeal. The issue in the prior appeal is of great importance and should be decided on the merits.” This court addressed the placement issue on the merits in the prior appeal and affirmed the order. The decision is now final. The current appeal from the order terminating parental rights is premised on reversal in the prior appeal. Father raises no other basis to reverse the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm.

III

Disposition

The March 6, 2017, order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J