In re Maria A.
Filed 1/24/13 In re Maria A. CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
In re MARIA A., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B242835
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
E. A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK79343)
APPEAL from
orders of the
County Superior Court.
Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge (Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21). Affirmed.
Michelle L.
Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No
appearance for Respondent.
_________________________________
The
freeing Maria A. for adoption. Appellant
E.A., Maria’s father, appeals. We
affirm.
FACTS
M.H.
(Mother) is the mother of seven children.
J.M. is the father of four children born between 1994 and 2004; he is
deceased. Appellant E.A. is the father
of three more children: E.A., Jr. (born
in 2006); G.A. (born in 2008); and Maria A. (born in May 2010). Only Maria and her father, E.A., are involved
in the current appeal.
Between
2006 and 2009, multiple referrals were submitted to the
Services (DCFS) alleging that the six children then in the family home were
at risk of general neglect. Initial
referrals were determined to be unfounded or inconclusive. In September 2009, DCFS received a referral
again alleging the children were at risk of general neglect. DCFS substantiated the latest referral,
detained the children, and placed them in out-of-home care.
As noted
above, Maria was born in May 2010.
Shortly before Maria was set to be released from the hospital, a DCFS
social worker submitted a “hospital hold†to allow for an assessment of her
well-being in the family’s home. On May 13, 2010, a social worker met and
talked to Mother and E.A. at the hospital.
Mother and E.A. denied they had been neglectful to any of their
children, and maintained that the allegations regarding the other children were
not true.
On May 20, 2010, DCFS filed a
juvenile dependency petition as to newborn Maria. On December
16, 2010, the court found an amended petition true under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) and (j).
Maria’s teenage brother, Jose M. had sexually abused his two sisters, while the
children were living with Mother. The
sexual abuse included vaginal penetration, oral copulation and other
that Jose was sexually abusing the children and failed to protect them. Maria’s siblings were current dependents of
the court because of the use of inappropriate discipline, including E.A.’s use
of a belt. Mother also suffered from
psychological problems, and the family home was filthy, unsanitary and
hazardous. The court removed Maria from
her parents’ care, and ordered DCFS to provide reunification services. We subsequently affirmed the court’s
jurisdictional orders. (See
(Jan. 13, 2011, B223767)
[nonpub. opn.].)
Following jurisdiction and
disposition, DCFS filed regular reports, and the court conducted regular review
hearings. At an 18 month review hearing
on March 5 and 6, 2012, the court heard testimony and argument; in the end the
court terminated the reunification services and set a permanent plan
hearing. (See § 366.26.) In making its orders, the court recognized
that the parents had participated in services, but found not enough progress
was made to allow the children to be returned to the family home safely. The parents were advised in open court of
their right to seek review of the court’s orders by extraordinary writ. E.A. filed a
24, 2012, the matter was deemed non-operational. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.)
On July 10, 2012, the section 366.26 hearing was argued
to the court. At that time, E.A.’s
counsel argued that the child-parent continuing benefit and the
sibling-relationship exceptions to adoption should be applied. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The court rejected the arguments and
terminated E.A.’s parental rights. E.A.
filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed
2012,
E.A.’s counsel filed an opening brief in accord with the procedures outlined in
In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th
835. We notified E.A. by letter that he
could submit any issues that he wished us to consider.
In November 2012, E.A. sent a
letter, written in Spanish, to our court.
Our court forwarded the letter to E.A.’s counsel for consideration, with
directions to then return the original and a translation of the letter. On December 7,
2012,
E.A.’s counsel complied with our directions. E.A.’s letter brief expresses his strong
desire to maintain a parental relationship with Maria, and includes information
-- some of which is supported by documentation -- showing his participation in
parenting programs.
While we do not question E.A.’s sincerity,
we affirm the dependency court’s decision that adoption is the best permanent
plan for Maria. Adoption must be
selected as the permanent plan for an adoptable child and parental rights
terminated unless there is a compelling reason for finding that termination
would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in
section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B).
(See In re Bailey J. (2010)
189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314.) The record
before us on appeal supports the dependency court’s conclusion that such
circumstances are not present here. E.A.
has not persuaded us that any arguable issue exists with respect to the
juvenile court’s termination order. (
DISPOSITION
The juvenile dependency court’s orders are affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We
concur:
RUBIN, J.
GRIMES, J.
social worker submitted the hold because Mother and E.A. had previously stated
to the social worker on different occasions that they did not understand why
the other children were removed from the family home. The social worker was concerned that neither
parent was taking responsibility for their actions which led to the detention
of the other children.
name="_ftn2" title="">
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
