In re Alexandra P.

Filed 5/23/08 In re Alexandra P. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Referee. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Noe P.

Joseph D. MacKenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maria S.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION

A father appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights, and the mother joins fathers arguments in a separate appeal. Because the juvenile court did not give the parents notice of the requirement that they file an extraordinary writ petition from an earlier order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing, they may seek review of issues arising from the earlier order in this appeal from the order terminating parental rights. Father claims that the trial court erroneously found that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided reasonable reunification services and claims that the case plan itself was inadequate. We conclude, however, that Fathers failure to object in the juvenile court to the provision of reasonable services or to the adequacy of the case plan forfeits his objection on appeal. We affirm the order terminating parental rights.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Detention of Alexandra P.: In Long Beach on November 6, 2005, an off-duty police officer saw Maria S. (Mother) leave her daughter, seven-month-old Alexandra P., in a closed truck with doors locked and windows up, alone in the hot truck interior for 30 minutes. Several minutes after the fire department arrived and retrieved Alexandra from the truck, Mother approached the truck. A police officer observed that Mother appeared to be under the influence of drugs. The police referred the matter to the DCFS, and a Childrens Social Worker (CSW) took Alexandra into protective custody. The CSW interviewed Mother concerning the allegation of general neglect. Mother stated that she left Alexandra in the truck because she was asleep, and left the car to search for $10.00 she claimed to have lost. Mother denied using drugs in the previous eight months, although she admitted that she had prostituted for drugs, that she had been in jail, and that she was currently on probation until 2007. Mother had another child, who lived with the childs father, Hugo A. Mother lived with Alexandras father, Noe P. (Father), and she was five months pregnant with another child by him. Mother had a two-year arrest record for prostitution. In 2003, Mother had her first child, Carissa A., removed due to caretaker absence/incapacity, and was alleged to be addicted to cocaine and using in front of the baby Carissa A. After an aunt threw Mother out of the home, Mother attempted suicide by climbing on a bridge. She was then hospitalized for severe depression. Alexandra was placed in a foster home.

On November 9, 2005, the juvenile court found that a prima facie case to detain Alexandra as a person described by section 300, subdivision (b), was established, and ordered Alexandra detained with temporary custody vested with the DCFS.

Petition re Alexandra P.: On November 9, 2005, a petition was filed alleging that Alexandra, age seven months, was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). An amended petition was filed on December 7, 2005, It alleged that Mother placed Alexandra in an endangering situation by locking her in a vehicle on a public street with inadequate ventilation with no adult supervision, with Mother being located only after Alexandra was rescued from the locked vehicle. The petition alleged Mothers history of cocaine and marijuana abuse rendered her incapable of providing regular care for Alexandra. The petition also alleged Mothers history of mental and emotional problems, including suicidal ideations, and Mothers hospitalization for her psychiatric condition. The petition alleged that Alexandra would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of her parents failure or inability to supervise or protect her and to provide regular care due to substance abuse.

Jurisdiction/Dispositional Hearings for Alexandra: For a December 7, 2005, jurisdictional hearing, the DCFS reported that in 2003, Mother had a previous referral of her first child, Carissa A., due to caretaker absence/incapacity, in which Mother was alleged to be addicted to cocaine and using in front of Carissa, Mother was expelled from the home by her aunt, Mother attempted suicide by climbing on a bridge, and Mother was hospitalized for severe depression. In September 2005, Mother was observed engaging in prostitution while caring for the child. When Alexandra was discovered left alone inside a truck, Mother stated that Alexandra had just fallen asleep when Mother began to feel ill. Mother said she left Alexandra inside the truck only for a few minutes and went to a bathroom where she threw up. She emerged 10 or 15 minutes later, and saw a police car and then an ambulance, but she was already with Alexandra. Mother admitted a history of substance abuse and began using drugs when she was 15 years old, using marijuana and cocaine on and off. Father knew Mother used marijuana sometimes and told her to stop, but Mother would not listen. Father stated that he did not know Mother used cocaine. Mother was currently seven months pregnant. Mother also admitted that she had been in a psychiatric hospital twice, first after she tried to jump from a bridge, and a second time three weeks previously when Alexandra was taken from her, which caused her to become paranoid and to have thoughts of hurting herself. Mother believed these thoughts came because she was raped several time and was sexually abused as a young girl.

For the December 7, 2005, hearing, Mother pleaded no contest to the petition. Mother also agreed to a court ordered disposition case plan, requiring drug rehabilitation with random testing, parent education, and individual counseling to address mental health and case issues. Mother was to have monitored visitation. Father was to have unmonitored visitation, as long as Mother was not present during visits. On December 7, 2005, the juvenile court sustained the petition as amended, and found that Alexandra was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court found that Father was the presumed father of Alexandra, and continued Fathers portion of the hearing to December 22, 2005.

In the December 22, 2005, hearing, the DCFS dismissed an allegation in the first amended petition of Fathers failure to protect the child and Father submitted to the juvenile courts jurisdiction. The juvenile court declared Alexandra a dependent child of the court and ordered Alexandra removed from Mother and Fathers custody and placed under DCFS supervision for suitable placement in foster care. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services for Mother, consisting of drug rehabilitation with random testing, parenting class, individual counseling to address mental health and case issues. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide reunification services for Father, to consist of parenting. The court ordered that before reunification could occur, the parents would have to show the ability to provide stable, appropriate housing and to meet Alexandras physical and emotional needs. The matter was continued to a March 23, 2006, progress hearing and a May 25, 2006, permanent plan hearing.

Detention of Natalie P.: On January 30, 2006, the CSW met with Mother and Father. Mother stated she had recently given birth to Natalie P., who was sleeping on Mothers bed. Mother stated that she attended counseling services at S.A.C.A. services, but could not provide any address, phone number, or a contact name at this agency. Mother stated that she had enrolled in a drug treatment program at Long Beach Health and Human Resources (LBHHR), but stopped attending in December 2005 due to the high cost. Mother reported submitting to two random drugs tests at LBHHR. Father stated that he had attended parenting classes at LBHHR, but stopped in December because of the high cost. The CSW could not confirm this information. Mother and Father stated that they maintained consistent visits with Alexandra and missed only one visit.

On February 6, 2006, the CSW met with Mother, who agreed to comply with court orders and to submit to an on-demand drug test that day. Mother reported that she had enrolled in an outpatient program at Atlantic House North and in individual counseling at WRAP Family Services. On February 13, 2006, however, the CSW received on-demand drug test results for February 6, 2006, for Mother, which indicated a no show. On February 13, 2006, a counselor at Atlantic House North informed the CSW that Mother enrolled on February 1, 2006 and returned on February 3, 2006, for a treatment plan intake. Mother was scheduled to attend three group sessions, NA classes, and was enrolled in random drug testing, but Mother had not attended since February 3, 2006. A staff person at WRAP Family Services informed the CSW that as of February 14, 2006, Mother was not a client of that agency.

Because of the parents non-compliance with their case plan and previous court orders, Natalie was found to be at substantial risk and CSWs removed her from her parents care. Father had not enrolled in parenting classes, and Mother had not enrolled in individual counseling or parenting classes, failed to attend an outpatient drug treatment program, and failed to random drug test. Mothers cousin reported that Mother had been arrested and Natalie was being cared for by Maria R. while Father was away working at one of his two jobs. Mother was incarcerated at the time of Natalies detention; Father was at work.

At a detention hearing on February 16, 2006, the juvenile court found that Noe P. was the presumed father of Natalie, that a prima facie case to detain Natalie as a person described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), was established, and ordered Natalie detained with temporary custody vested with the DCFS. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services to the parents, to provide Mother with referrals for drug rehabilitation with random testing, parenting classes, and individual counseling, and to provide Father with a referral for parenting classes. The juvenile court set a jurisdiction/dispositional hearing on March 16, 2006.

Petition for Natalie P.: On February 16, 2006, a petition was filed alleging that Natalie P., 22 days old, was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged Mothers history of substance abuse, including abuse of cocaine and marijuana, which rendered Mother incapable of providing Natalie with regular care and supervision and endangered Natalies physical and emotional health and safety. A second count alleged that Mother had a history of mental and emotional problems and had been hospitalized for her psychiatric condition, which endangered Natalies physical and emotional health and safety. A third count alleged that Natalie was a person described by section 300, subdivision (j), alleging that Natalies siblings, Carissa A. and Alexandra P. were dependent children of the juvenile court due to Mothers use of illicit drugs, Mothers leaving Alexandra alone without supervision in a locked vehicle, and Mothers mental and emotional problems; that the conduct of Mother and of Father, Noe P., endangered Natalie in that Mother failed to comply with prior court orders regarding enrolling and completing a substance abuse rehabilitation program, drug testing, and parenting classes, and Father had failed to comply with court orders regarding his enrollment in and completion of parenting classes.

Jurisdiction/Dispositional Hearing for Natalie: For the March 16, 2006, hearing, the DCFS reported that Mother stated on March 2, 2006, that she had not used drugs since Alexandra was taken from her. She stated that she was molested and witnessed domestic violence as a young child, and had used drugs to help her forget about her problems. On March 8, 2006, however, Mother tested positive for cocaine. Mother failed to submit to random drug testing on February 6 and 28, 2006. Confronted with the missed tests, Mother denied missing any drug tests. Mother had enrolled in a rehabilitation program on February 1, 2006, but had not attended consistently. A case manager at Atlantic House North reported that since enrolling in an outpatient program on February 1, 2006, Mother attended three group sessions on February 28 and on March 2 and 7, 2006. Mother had not enrolled in individual counseling. On March 9, 2006, Mother was to meet with the CSW, but Mother failed to show for the interview and provided no explanation. Father had not yet enrolled in parenting classes. Father was the familys sole support, and worked two jobs, six days a week. On March 2, 2006, Father stated it was difficult for him to take time from work and do what the court asked him to do, but said he would enroll in parenting classes as soon as possible. Father claimed not to know that Mother used drugs before Alexandra was detained.

For the March 16, 2006, jurisdiction/dispositional hearing, Father and Mother both pleaded no contest. The trial court found that substantial danger existed to Natalies physical health, sustained the section 300 petition as amended and found that Natalie was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), declared Natalie a dependent child of the juvenile court, and took custody from the parents and placed Natalie with the DCFS for suitable placement. The court again found that before reunification could occur, the parents would have to show the ability to meet the childs physical and emotional needs, and to provide stable, appropriate housing. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services, monitored visits for Mother and unmonitored visits for Father, ordered Father to participate in a counseling program to include parenting issues, ordered Mother to participate in individual counseling, parenting, drug counseling, and random drug testing, and continued the matter to August 17, 2006, for a permanent plan hearing.

Alexandras Six-Month Review Hearing: As of March 23, 2006, the DCFS reported that Mother had not complied with group counseling sessions, and tested positive for cocaine on March 8, 2006. Mother had not enrolled in individual counseling or parenting classes. Mother and Father visited with Alexandra four times in January and February 2006, but did not show for a scheduled visit after February 9, 2006; Father could not visit because he had to work; Mother had no explanation. Father visited both children in a rescheduled visit; Mother did not attend.

As of May 25, 2006, the DCFS reported that Mother and Father had visited Alexandra on a regular basis, they had not cooperated or maintained contact with the CSW, and had not complied with court orders. The parents visited Alexandra 11 times between January 12 and April 19, 2006, but failed to visit on March 16 and 30, and on April 12, 2006. The CSW visited the home of Mother and Father on April 18, 2006, where the paternal aunt reported that Mother and Father were not available and stated that they spent nights away from their home. The CSW asked the paternal aunt to have Mother and Father contact the CSW as soon as possible, but they had not contacted the CSW, and on April 24, 2006, the CSW submitted a due diligence search to locate Mother and Father. Mother had failed to submit to random drug testing on February 6 and 28, 2006, March 15 and 30, 2006, and on April 14, 2006. Mother had not enrolled in individual counseling or parenting classes; Father had not complied with court orders to participate in parenting classes.

In the May 25, 2006, hearing, the juvenile court found that Father had made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement of Alexandra in foster care, and that Mother had made no progress. The juvenile court found that Mother had not consistently and regularly contacted and visited Alexandra, had not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to Alexandras removal from the home, and had not shown the ability to complete objectives of her treatment plan and to provide for Alexandras safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being and special needs. The juvenile court ordered family reunification services terminated for Mother. Although the juvenile court could not find there was a substantial probability Alexandra could be returned to Father in the next review period, the juvenile court found it was in Alexandras best interests to continue reunification services to Father. The matter was set for an August 17, 2006, permanent plan hearing.

For the next review hearing for Natalie and Alexandra, the DCSF reported that Father provided the CSW with a progress report from S.E.A. Soledad Enrichment Action, Inc., that he enrolled in parenting classes, attended 8 out of 20 sessions, and had an estimated completion date of November 15, 2006. Father lived with his brother and stated his willingness to comply with court orders and his hope to reunify with his children. The DCFS reported that it continued to provide Father with resources as needed and a CSW had monthly contact with Father in May, June, and July 2006. Mother could not comply with court orders because of her incarceration at Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood. Father was in compliance with visitation of Alexandra and Natalie, appearing for eleven visits between May 28 and August 3, 2006, and missing three visits during that time because he was unable to take time off work. Mothers incarceration prevented her from visitation.

At the hearing August 17, 2006, hearing, Father appeared and Mother was present in custody. The juvenile court found Father in partial compliance with the case plan, that he consistently visited the children and made significant progress in resolving problems that led to their removal from the parents home, and had shown the ability to complete his treatment plan and provide for the childrens safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. The juvenile court found there was a substantial probability that the children would be returned to Fathers custody within the next review period. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services to Father. The juvenile court found that Mother was not in compliance with the case plan, and ordered reunification services terminated for Mother as to Natalie.

Detention of Angel P.: Mother gave birth to Angel P. in December 2006

Mother and Angel tested positive for cocaine. Mother admitted using cocaine two days previously. Mother was incarcerated after her May 20, 2006, arrest on a parole violation, but was released on November 28, 2006. Mother admitted her drug problem and said she intended to enroll in a drug treatment program. Angel was detained on December 15, 2006, at the hospital where he was born.

Petition for Angel P.: On December 20, 2006, a petition was filed alleging that Angel P., five days old, was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged Mothers history of substance abuse and current use of cocaine, rendering her incapable of regularly caring for the child; that Mother tested positive for cocaine on December 15, 2006; that Angels siblings, Natalie and Alexandra, were currently dependent children of the juvenile court, and that Father knew about Mothers substance abuse problem and failed to take appropriate action to protect Angel. The petition also alleged Mothers history of serious mental and emotional problems.

On December 20, 2006, the juvenile court found that a prima facie case to detain Angel as a person described by section 300, subdivision (b), was established, ordered Angel detained, ordered temporary custody vested with the DCFS, and continued the matter to a pretrial resolution conference on February 8, 2007.

A first amended section 300 petition for Angel was filed on February 8, 2007, adding the allegation that Angel was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b), because his siblings, Alexandra and Natalie, were dependent children of the juvenile court.

February 8, 2007, hearing: For the February 8, 2007, hearing, as to Alexandra and Natalie, the DCFS reported that Father rented an apartment in Long Beach since December 2006, attended weekly two-hour parenting classes, and said he needed one more parenting class to complete the course. Father did not show up for his appointment with a CSW on November 16, 2006. The foster parent reported that Father did not see his children on November 12, 19 and 23, 2006, or on December 7, 2006. On December 14, 2006, Father told the caregiver he would only be able to see Alexandra and Natalie for three hours instead of his regular 6-hour visit.

On January 4, 2007, a CSW met Mother and Father at their apartment, a two-bedroom apartment with no furniture except a dining table, no stove or refrigerator, and no gas service, only electricity. Mother said she had been living with Father since her release from jail on November 28, 2006, and was looking for a rehabilitation program, parenting classes, and therapy. The CSW provided Mother with referrals, and Mother said she would begin looking that day, and would enroll in an inpatient drug program that week. Mother admitted smoking marijuana two days previously. The CSW gave Mother copies of on-demand and random drug testing forms, and Mother said she understood how to call about random testing. Later that day Mother telephoned the CSW, stating she was not able to drug test because she did not have identification.

On January 11, 2007, at a Team Decision Meeting, Father was told that although the DCFS recommended terminating family reunification services, based on current information the DCFS wanted the children reunified but could not recommend reunification until an assessment was done after overnight visits. It was agreed that overnight visits would begin by January 20, 2007, once it was determined that Fathers home had appropriate furniture, beds, gas service, and a stove and refrigerator, and that Mother would move out of the home before visits began. A visit for Father and Mother with Angel was scheduled for January 13, 2007. The foster parent, however, reported on January 16, 2007, that the parents did not show up for that visit and did not call. Father could not be reached by home or cell phone numbers. A CSW made an unannounced visit to Fathers house on January 18, 2007, but there was no answer. Later on January 18, 2007, CSWs made a second unannounced visit to Fathers home, where they found Mother by the door reading a paper. Mother told the CSW that she was living there. Mother refused to allow the CSWs to enter the apartment, and said Father was at his parenting class and would go from there to work. The CSW told Mother that she was supposed to leave by the court date, but Mother said she had nowhere to go and could not move in with her aunt.

After repeated unsuccessful efforts to contact Father at his cell phone, work, home, and second job, on January 19, 2007, a CSW received a phone call from Father, who again said he needed one more class and would complete his parenting course soon. Father explained his delay in finishing the parenting course by stating that he had other things to do. Father said Mother was still living with him because she had no place else to go, but that she would leave in a few days. Father stated he had not bought anything for his home, and would begin the next month, in February, even though overnight visits were scheduled to begin on January 20, 2007. Father said he would call the CSW the next week so the CSW could assess his home for the childrens overnight visits. The CSW asked why Mother and Father had not visited Angel; Father answered that he called the foster mother but there was no answer and he did not leave a message. Father stated that he called to find out the time of the visit, but the CSW told him this information had already been given to him. Father said he forgot that the information was on a paper given to him by the CSW.

On January 25, 2007, the CSW telephoned Father, and told him the CSW was waiting for his call to assess his home and the items Father said he would buy. Father said he had not purchased anything. Father said Mother had left the apartment and she was no longer there, but her belongings were still in his apartment. Father stated he had not finished his parenting course, but was going to go that day at 9:00 a.m. to finish his parenting course.

Father missed two visits with Alexandra and Natalie in November 2006, missed three visits in December 2006, and missed no visits in January 2007. Father visited Alexandra and Natalie 14 times between September 3, 2006, and January 20, 2007. The DCFS observed that early in the previous six months, Father visited consistently, on time, and rarely missed a visit. Toward the end of the previous six months, however, Fathers missed visits increased, in November and December 2006, and the foster mother reported that Father was late to visits and sometimes did not call to cancel. The DCFS observed that Fathers visits had minimized since Mothers release from jail, and the CSW was concerned that Fathers priority focused on Mother and not on the children. In six months, Father had not completed his parenting class and had not attended his class in the previous month. Fathers housing lacked basic necessities necessary for the children to return to his care, and he had not yet cared for the children on a full-time basis on overnight visits. Father understood that the DCFS could not recommend reunifying him and the children until it was able to assess the childrens overnight visits. As of February 8, 2007, Father had not made equipped his home with a refrigerator, stove, or other items necessary for overnight visits, and had not provided an adequate child-care plan for when he was at work at his two jobs. The DCFS concluded that Fathers motivation to reunify was in question, and the risk to the children of neglect remained high. The DCFS recommended termination of family reunification services and initiation of permanent placement services.

In a jurisdiction/disposition report for Angel, the DCFS reported that in a January 11, 2007, interview, Mother said she had smoked marijuana one week previously. Mother reported no contact with Angel since he was removed from her care and said she would visit him next week. It was later learned that Mother did not show for that visit. As of February 1, 2007, it was reported that Mother and Father scheduled two monitored visits with Angel, but twice failed to show. As of February 2, 2007, neither Mother nor Father had any contact with Angel. The DCFS recommended that reunification services as to Angel not be provided to Father, as he was an alleged father, and that reunification services need not be provided to Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(13).

The foster parents were willing to adopt Alexandra, Natalie, and Angel.

The DCFS filed three supplemental reports on the day of the February 8, 2007, hearing. The DCFS reported that Mother did not show for drug tests on January 18 and January 22, 2007. On January 27, 2007, Mother and Father had a scheduled visit with the foster parents to see Angel, but they did not appear for the visit or call to cancel. On February 3, 2007, Mother and Father had a scheduled visit to see Angel. The foster mother reported that 10 minutes before leaving to meet the parents, Mother called to cancel, saying that Father had to work. The CSW received a letter from Fathers parenting class, SEA Soledad Enrichment Action in Long Beach, stating that Father had completed 20 out of 20 parenting classes on February 1, 2007. The foster mother of Natalie and Alexandra reported that Mother called her on Friday, February 2, 2007, stating that she and Father were going to visit the children the next day after 1:00 p.m. The foster parent reported that Mother called from Fathers home telephone number that time and at all other times when Mother telephoned she called from fathers home telephone or cell phone. On February 7, 2007, a CSW called unannounced at Fathers home, where there was no answer. The CSW spoke to a building manager, who said he had not seen Father or Mother in a few weeks. The manager stated that Father had not paid January and February rent, that the manager had left notes requesting payment of the monthly rent, and that Father could be evicted any time.

On February 8, 2007, the juvenile court set the matter for a contested permanent plan hearing as to Alexandra and Natalie, and for an adjudication hearing as to Angel.

For the March 15, 2007, hearing, the DCFS reported that a CSW telephoned Father at his work. Father stated he was living with a friend. When asked why he had not maintained contact with the CSW or the DCSF, Father said he did not know and that he had been busy. Father said that the foster mother was a liar and would not make herself available for visits with the children, but agreed that he should have called the CSW if he felt the foster parent was not giving him visits with the children. The DCFS also reported regarding visitation. The CSW reported that Father had visits with Alexandra and Natalie on February 3 and 17, 2007. On February 10, 2007, Father had a scheduled visit but did not show up or call to reschedule. On February 24, 2007, Father did not see his children or call to reschedule. On February 12, 2007, the foster mother reported on February 9, 2007, that Mother called at 11:00 p.m. to schedule a visit for the next day, and called the next day and left a voice mail, but did not call again. On February 21, 2007, a CSW mailed Father a letter noting Fathers lack of contact with the CSW and requesting that he telephone the CSW as soon as possible. The CSW reported that on five days in February and March, 2007, the CSW tried to contact Father at his two jobs, his home, and his cell phone, and left voicemail messages, but Father did not call the CSW.

On March 8, 2007, the CSW made an unannounced visit to Fathers home. The blinds were open and the CSW could see that the apartment, which had a for rent sign, was empty. The manager told the CSW that soon after Valentines Day, the police came and evicted Father and Mother, who had been living in Fathers apartment. Father left no forwarding address, and had not paid the rent.

On March 8, 2007, the CSW spoke with maternal aunt Maria C., asking for Mother and Fathers whereabouts. Maria C. said that Mother had not called her in awhile.

On March 12, 2007, the foster mother reported to the CSW that she arrived for an 11:00 a.m. visit on March 10, 2007, waited until 11:45 a.m., but Mother and Father did not show up or call.

Mother was to drug test weekly, but had a no show on February 8, 15, and 26, 2007.

On March 15, 2007, the juvenile court held a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Angel, a 12-month review hearing for Natalie, and an eighteen18-month review hearing for Alexandra. Mother and Father did not appear, although their attorneys did appear at the hearing. Mother and Father submitted no evidence. The childrens attorney requested an order terminating reunification services for Father; Mothers reunification services had already been terminated. Fathers attorney stated that she had no direction from Father, and submitted the matter. The juvenile court found that return of the children to the parents physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment, creating a continuing necessity for their current placement in foster care. The juvenile court further found that the parents had made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement of Alexandra and Natalie, and that their failure to participate and make substantive progress constituted prima facie evidence that return of the children to the parents custody would be detrimental to them. The juvenile court found that the DCFS had complied with the case plan in making reasonable efforts to return the children to a safe home and to complete steps to make and finalize their permanent placement. The juvenile court ordered the children to remain dependent children of the juvenile court and found there was no substantial probability of either Natalie or Alexandra being returned home by the 18-month date. The juvenile court found that during 16 months, Father was asked to complete a parenting class and to visit the children, but had not regularly visited with the children. Father had completed a parenting class. Father refused to drug test. After Mother was released from jail in November 2006, she lived with Father, tested positive for cocaine on December 15, 2006, and admitted using drugs in Fathers home. Mother also made statements indicating that domestic violence occurred while she lived with Father. The juvenile court found that Father had not shown the ability to meet the objectives of the case plan and provide for the childrens safety, protection, and well-being. The juvenile court ordered termination of reunification services to Father, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan on July 12, 2007.

The juvenile court requested the court clerk to send writ notices to Mother and to Father. The record, however, does not show that the court clerk mailed writ notices to either Mother or Father.

The juvenile court then conducted an adjudication and dispositional hearing for Angel. Mother and Father requested reunification services. The juvenile court found that the evidence sustained the allegations of the section 300 petition as to Angel, and declared Angel a dependent child of the court under section 300, subdivision (b). Pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c), the juvenile court found that return of Angel to his parents custody would pose a substantial danger to Angels physical health, safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being, and there were no means by which to protect Angels physical health without removing him from the parents physical custody. Therefore the juvenile court ordered Angel removed from the physical custody of Father and Mother. Specifically as to Father, the juvenile court found that placing Angel with Father would be detrimental to Angel, and ordered custody and control of Angel to be placed under the supervision of the DCFS. As to Angel, the juvenile court ordered no reunification services be provided for Father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), or for Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(13). The juvenile court found that Angels siblings had been removed from Mother and Father, that reunification services had been terminated as to Mother and Father, and that in 16 months Mother and Father had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of Alexandra and Natalie.

As to Angel, the juvenile court set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan on July 12, 2007, and ordered the court clerk to send writ notices to Mother and to Father. The juvenile court set April 12, 2007, for verification that the parents were personally served and for a progress report on the home study.

Father appeared at the July 12, 2007, hearing, but Mother was in jail. The juvenile court continued the hearing to July 26, 2007, for Mother to be transported from jail to court, and ordered Father to return for that hearing.

At the July 27, 2007, hearing, neither Father nor Mother appeared. The DCFS reported that the DCFS discovered that Mother was released from Lynwood Detention Center on July 2, 2007. She was personally served on June 25, 2007, for the July 12, 2007, hearing but did not appear at that hearing. The DCFS mailed notice of the July 26, 2007, hearing where Mother was living at the home of her maternal aunt. On July 19, 2007, a CSW left a message for Mother at the maternal aunts telephone, but received no response. On July 23, 2007, the CSW made an unannounced visit to Mothers residence and confirmed that Mother lived at that location. Family members stated that Mother was attending an AA meeting. In lieu of personal service, the CSW left substituted personal service of Mother with her aunt. The juvenile court found valid service for both Mother and Father.

Both the attorney for Mother and for Father stated that they had no direction from their respective clients. The juvenile court found that continued jurisdiction was necessary, that the children were adoptable, and that the children lived with their caretakers, with an approved home study, who wished to adopt them. The juvenile court declared those caretakers to be prospective adoptive parents, found that it would be detrimental to the children to return them to their parents, ordered adoption as the permanent plan, and ordered parental rights of Mother and Father terminated as to Alexandra, Natalie, and Angel.

Mother and Father filed timely notice of appeal on July 26, 2007, from the July 26, 2007, order terminating parental rights.

ISSUES

Father claims on appeal that:

1. The order terminating his parental rights violated his right to due process where no substantial evidence showed Father had been provided with reasonable reunification services for Alexandra, Natalie, and Angel;

2. Father has not forfeited his challenge to the juvenile courts orders terminating his reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.

Mother claims on appeal that:

1. Mother did not forfeit her right to appeal the court orders that terminated her parental rights;

2. Mother has standing to appeal and to join Fathers arguments; and

3. Reversal of a judgment terminating one parents parental rights is applicable to both parents.

DISCUSSION

1. Lack of Notice to Mother and Father That They Must Seek an Extraordinary

Writ From the Order Terminating Parental Rights and Setting the Section

366.26 Hearing Relieves Them of This Requirement, and Permits Review of

Issues Arising From That Order in an Appeal From the Order Terminating

Parental Rights

California Rules of Court, rule 5.585, subdivision (b), gives a parent, in proceedings under section 300, the right to appeal from any judgment, order, or decree specified in section 395. Section 395, subdivision (a)(1), states: A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment. The dispositional order is the first appealable order in a dependency proceeding. (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 196.) All subsequent juvenile court dependency orders after the dispositional order may be appealed with one exception. Section 366.26, subdivision (l), bars direct appeals from orders setting a section 366.26 hearing. Review of such an order may be had only by filing a petition for an extraordinary writ. Rule 5.585, subdivision (b), states: Any judgment, order, or decree setting a hearing under section 366.26 may be reviewed on appeal following the order at the section 366.26 hearing only if the procedures in rules 8.450, 8.452, and 5.600 have been followed.

Rule 5.600, subdivision (b), states, in pertinent part: When the court orders a hearing under section 366.26, the court must advise orally all parties present, and by first-class mail for parties not present, that if the party wishes to preserve any right to review on appeal of the order setting the hearing under section 366.26, the party is required to seek an extraordinary writ by filing a Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record, (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.450) (form JV-820) or other notice of intent to file a writ petition and request for record and a Petition for Extraordinary Writ (California Rules of Court, Rules 8.452, 8.456) (form JV-825) or other petition for extraordinary writ.

(1) Within 24 hours of the hearing, notice by first-class mail must be provided by the clerk of the court to the last known address of any party who is not present when the court orders the hearing under section 366.26.

In this case the juvenile court requested the court clerk to send writ notices to Mother and to Father, but the record does not show that the court clerk mailed those writ notices to either Mother or Father. Neither parent filed a writ pursuant to the requirement in rule 8.585, subdivision (b). Therefore the issue is whether Fathers appeal from the July 26, 2007, order terminating parental rights can seek review of the March 15, 2007, order setting the section 366.26 hearing and ordering termination of reunification services.

Where the juvenile court failed to give the notice to the party of the requirement of seeking an extraordinary writ as required by rule 5.600, subdivision (b), however, in most cases the parent has good cause to be relieved of the requirement. Thus, even though the parent failed to file a writ petition, he or she can still challenge, on appeal, the order setting a section 366.26 hearing. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 625.) In this appeal, the juvenile court failed to give the notice to the party of the requirement of seeking an extraordinary writ as required by rule 5.600, subdivision (b), and no petition was taken from the order setting the section 366.26 hearing. Instead the parties filed notices of appeal from the order terminating parental rights. In this circumstance, the parties may seek review of issues arising from the earlier order terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing. (In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722; In re Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 448, 450; In re Athena P., supra, at p. 625; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110.)

2. Fathers Failure to Object to Reunification Services or to the Adequacy of the

Case Plan in the Lower Court Forfeits His Claim on Appeal

Father (joined by Mother) claims that the juvenile courts order terminating Fathers reunification services for Alexandra, Natalie, and Angel was error because substantial evidence does not support the juvenile courts finding that the DCFS provided him with reasonable reunification services.

a. The Provision of Reunification Services

Subject to some exceptions, whenever a child is removed from a parents . . . custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the childs mother and statutorily presumed father . . . .  Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court or proof of a prior declaration of paternity by any court of competent jurisdiction, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child. ( 361.5, subd. (a).) Generally for children who are under the age of three years on the date of their initial removal from their parents physical custody, court-ordered services shall not exceed a period of six months from the date the child entered foster care. (Id. at subd. (a)(2).)

At the review hearing held six months after the initial dispositional hearing, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. ( 366.21, subd. (e).) This statute also states: If the child is not returned to his or her parent . . . , the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent . . . in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent . . . .   The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated. (Ibid.)

b. Fathers Failure to Object to the Provision of Reasonable Services or to the

Adequacy of the Case Plan Forfeits His Objection on Appeal

In this case, Father claims that the DCFS services were limited to facilitating visits for Father with his children, and encouraging Father to complete a parenting course, but that the DCFS had concerns about issues which were not part of Fathers case plan and as to which the DCFS provided no services: Fathers inadequate living arrangements, his lack of a child-care plan for the children when Father was at work, and his continuing relationship with Mother. However, at no time during the dependency proceeding did Father make any objection either that the reunification services were not designed to aid him in overcoming the problems that led to the removal and custody of the children, or that the DCFS did not provide reasonable services. His failure to object during the period in which reunification services were offered, and at the time they were ordered terminated, forfeits this issue on appeal. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.) Specifically, when a finding is made at the order terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing that reasonable reunification efforts were made, a parents failure to object in the juvenile court forfeits this issue on appeal. (In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885; In re Lauren Z., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110.) At the March 15, 2007, hearing, Father did not appear, and his attorney stated that she had received no direction from her client, and submitted on the order terminating Fathers reunification services. The same is true of an objection to the adequacy of the terms of the case plan; Father submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and did not object to the case plan and its objectives when first ordered on December 22, 2005, and thus waived his right to complain about its adequacy. (In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1476.)

DISPOSITION

The July 26, 2007, order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J., Acting P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] Unless otherwise specified, statutes in this opinion will refer to the Welfare and Institutions Code.