In re Carlos C.





Filed 6/13/11 In re Carlos C. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re CARLOS C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B228568 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK82962)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE V., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Maryann M. Milcetic, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________

Jose V. appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order requiring him to attend a 52-week domestic violence program after the court sustained allegations in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b),^[1] alleging he had physically abused his four children, seven-year-old Jose V., Jr., five-year-old Pedro V., two-year-old L.V. and one-year-old Jesus V., and their half-sibling, 12-year-old Carlos C., and had an unresolved history of alcohol abuse. Jose contends the court erred in ordering him to participate in the domestic violence program, which was not part of the proposed disposition plan to which he had agreed in mediation with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department), without expressly advising him he had a right to withdraw his no contest plea and to request a fully contested jurisdiction hearing. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Department received an emergency referral on July 1, 2010 alleging the children were victims or at risk of physical abuse from Jose. They were detained the same day and placed together in shelter care. A section 300 petition was filed on July 7, 2010 alleging, in part, Jose had physically abused Carlos on July 1, 2010 by hitting him in the face with a thrown shoe, on prior occasions had hit him with a fist and belt and had locked him in a bathroom or a shed for extended periods of time. It was also alleged Jose had physically abused Jose, Jr., Pedro and L.V. by striking them with a belt and other objects. The petition further alleged Jose has a history of alcohol abuse and is a daily abuser of alcohol, which created a detrimental home environment and placed the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. With respect to the children's mother, Juana C., the petition alleged she had struck Jose, Jr. with a belt on prior occasions and had failed to protect the children even though she knew of Jose's ongoing physical abuse.^[2]
At the detention hearing Juana indicated she had separated from Jose and was now living with her sister in San Bernardino. She advised the court she feared Jose, with whom she had been living for 10 years, and wanted to keep her new address confidential. The court found a prima facie case had been established that the children were described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j),^[3] and that continuance in the homes of Jose or Juana created substantial danger to their physical health and was contrary to their welfare. The court ordered referrals for Juana to a domestic violence support group, parenting and individual counseling and for Jose to â€