In re G.A.
Gary A. (Gary) and Jose N. (Jose) appeal from orders denying their respective petitions to modify a previous order and terminating their respective parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (All undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Gary contends the juvenile court erred when it declined to find that the beneficial relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applied to the relationship with his son, G.A. Jose contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his section 388 petition requesting that the section 366.26 order be vacated and he be given six months of additional services. Alternatively, Jose asserts the juvenile court erred when it declined to find that the beneficial relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applied to the relationship with his son, J.N. As we explain below, we reject Gary's contentions, but reverse as to Jose.
GENERAL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has four children, J.N. (born 2009), G.A. (born 2007), F.U. (born 2006) and M.H. (born 2004), each with a different father. In January 2011, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) received a referral that Mother had left the children with the maternal grandparents for days at a time and was not attending to their needs. There were also concerns regarding Mother's lack of involvement and unwillingness to receive in-home services for F.U., who has autism.
In February 2011, Mother was arrested and incarcerated for possession of drug paraphernalia. She did not attend a Team Decision Meeting and refused the Agency's offer of services. The Agency filed separate petitions on behalf of the children. The Agency detained the children and ultimately placed then in the home of the maternal grandmother.
Comments on In re G.A.