In re V.G.
Filed 5/3/10 In re V.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
In re V.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court
Law.
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
J.W.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E048419
(Super.Ct.Nos.
J226512 & J226513)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of San
Bernardino County. A. Rex Victor, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
Diana
W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Ruth
E. Stringer, County Counsel, Dawn Stafford and Jeffrey L. Bryson, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joanne
Willis Newton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
Defendant
and appellant J.W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional
order denying him reunification services
and visitation as to his two daughters: five-year-old
J.G. and four-year-old V.G.[1] On appeal, Father contends the juvenile court
erred in denying him reunification services and visitation with his
daughters. We reject these contentions
and affirm the judgment.
Minors'
counsel raises a new issue without first having filed a cross-appeal and argues
that the juvenile court failed to
comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Father joins in minors' argument.
I
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
family came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Children and Family
Services (CFS) on March 27, 2009,
after then one-year-old M.P. was admitted to the hospital with pneumonia and
failure to thrive. Baby A.P. also showed
signs of failing to thrive and was admitted to the hospital the following
day. While at the hospital, J.G. stated
four different times that she was hungry and there was no food in the
home. Mother reported that she did not
have a ride and, therefore, walked from her home to the hospital with her four
young children for three hours. She also
stated that she was feeling overwhelmed trying to care for four children under
the age of five, and that her mother was planning to help her.
Mother
further disclosed that J.G. and V.G. were victims of physical and emotional
abuse by Father and were seeing a therapist one time a week. Two years ago, Mother took the girls to stay
with Father temporarily while she was recovering from a work-related
accident. Father refused to give the
girls back and went to court to get custody of the girls so he would not have
to pay child support. However, after a
very short time of having the girls, Father was unable to care for then
one-year-old V.G. V.G. cried constantly,
and Father tried to suffocate her on several occasions. He also beat her and â€
Description | Defendant and appellant J.W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order denying him reunification services and visitation as to his two daughters: five-year-old J.G. and four-year-old V.G.[1] On appeal, Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying him reunification services and visitation with his daughters. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. Minors' counsel raises a new issue without first having filed a cross-appeal and argues that the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Father joins in minors' argument. |
Rating |