In re Alicia G.
Filed 8/23/06 In re Alicia G. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| In re ALICIA G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187572 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK43787) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL G., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Margaret Henry, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, County Counsel, Larry Cory and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Paul G. appeals from dependency court orders of September 22, 2005, and November 18, 2005, terminating his parental rights to two of his children[1] and denying relief after rehearing. Appellant contends that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which the dependency court issued the termination order. We conclude that the court's finding that appellant was effectively served by certified mail in an Idaho correctional facility was supported by substantial evidence, and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case has a long history beginning in October 2000, when minors Alicia G., Johnny G., and Roland G.[2] were detained by the Department of Family and Children's Services (DCFS) based on physical abuse and drug and alcohol usage on the part of their caregivers, including their mother[3] and her boyfriend. Appellant was living in Idaho at the time. He was located and served at various addresses in Idaho and Oregon throughout the proceedings. No issue was raised concerning notice during this period. Appellant appeared at one hearing in October 2001.
In April 2002, the court ordered reunification services terminated and stated that the children would be kept in long term foster care.
Multiple Attempts to Serve Notice of Section 366.26 Hearing
In September 2003, after numerous status hearings, the court set a permanent plan hearing for Johnny and Roland under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for March 25, 2004. It appeared at the time that the boys' custodian, their maternal uncle Robert N., was interested in adopting them. When the March date arrived, the court found that neither appellant nor the children's mother had been properly served with notice of the hearing, and continued the matter to September 23, 2004. At the time, appellant's reported address was on Maywood Avenue in Boise, Idaho. An attempt was made to serve appellant with notice of the September 23 hearing there and at another address on Five Mile Road in Boise.
On September 23, 2004, the court concluded that although DCFS had purported to serve appellant via certified mail, because no signed receipt was in the file, appellant had not received proper notice.[4] The permanent plan hearing was continued to December 20, 2004.
Prior to the December 2004 hearing, DCFS reported that appellant had moved from Five Mile Road and that a â€
