Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. INJ018626. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge.
Maryann M. Milcetic, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.C.
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.W.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
MILLER J.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of T.C. (Mother) and M.W. (Father) to their son (Z.W.) and their daughter (A.W.). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because the court did not apply the sibling exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Father contends the juvenile court violated his due process rights by terminating his parental rights due to his lack of housing. We affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
Z.W. and A.W. (born May 2005) are fraternal twins (the Twins). Their parents are Mother and Father. Mother has another daughter, A.F., born in October 1991. Mother has a third daughter, and Father has two other sons; however, they are not pertinent to the instant appeal. During the first jurisdiction/disposition phase of this case, Father was in the process of divorcing the mother of his two other sons.
Father is the presumed father of the Twins.
B. DETENTION NO. 1
On November 26, 2006, Mother was arrested for using counterfeit $100 bills at two different businesses. When Mother was arrested, she was in possession of two grams of methamphetamine and a glass pipe.
On November 26, 2006, a social worker with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) telephoned Father to ask if he could care for the Twins. Father had moved out of the home that he shared with Mother approximately one week prior to November 26. Father explained that he purchased a mobile home several weeks prior, and had ended the relationship with Mother. While on the telephone, Father admitted using methamphetamine on November 26. Father explained that he used methamphetamine because his toilet fell through the rotted bathroom floor of his mobile home. The social worker did not leave the Twins with Father due to his drug use.
The maternal grandmother had been granted legal custody of A.F.; however, the grandmother moved to Washington. A.F.’s biological father’s parental rights were terminated due to his abusing A.F. and her older sister. Grandmother informed the Department social worker that she could not leave Washington to take care of the Twins in California. The Twins were detained due to Mother’s and Father’s drug abuse and criminal activity.
C. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION NO. 1
Mother was a licensed hairdresser, esthetician, and manicurist. She worked as a beautician until she broke her back. Mother had been working as a supervisor at Ross until she was arrested. Mother admitted that she began abusing drugs at age 13; she was 34 years old at the time of the first jurisdiction/disposition report. Mother’s drug abuse began with marijuana, and she became addicted to pain medication when she broke her back. Mother replaced the pain medication with heroin, because “‘[h]eroin was more cost effective.’” Eventually, Mother “‘settled for methamphetamines’ and... used it ‘on and off.’” Mother said she had tried to recover from her addiction numerous times, including while she was on parole and while she was at a residential sober living facility.
Father’s job involved working on automatic fire sprinklers. Father indicated that he began using drugs when he was 18 years old; he was 32 years old at the time of the first jurisdiction/disposition report. Father admitted using alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Father paid child support for his two sons from a prior relationship in the amount of $242.50, on a weekly basis.
The juvenile court found that there was a substantial risk that the Twins would suffer serious physical harm or illness if left in the care of Mother and Father (§ 300, subd. (b)), and that the Twins had been left without any provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). The juvenile court ordered that the Twins be placed in a foster home or other suitable facility, and that Mother and Father participate in reunification services.
D. SIX-MONTH STATUS REVIEW
At the six-month review, Mother was living with Father in his two-bedroom mobile home in Palm Springs. Mother lost her residence when she lost her cash aid; she lost her cash aid due to the children being detained. The Twins were placed together in a foster home, in Rialto. A.F. was moved to a variety of foster homes, due to her behavior, and it is not clear if she was housed with the Twins at any point. Due to the cost of gas and unreliable transportation, Mother and Father had a difficult time visiting the Twins. The visits were typically scheduled to occur in Rialto or Moreno Valley.
Mother and Father enrolled in Family Preservation Court. Mother had 29 negative drug tests and participated in the parenting program and counseling sessions. Father had 24 negative drug tests; he had two positive drug tests in February 2007. Father was on a waiting list to enroll in the parenting program.
Family Preservation Court is a one-year program administered by the Indio Center for Change. The goal of the program is for participants to be drug and alcohol free; drug testing is part of the program.
The juvenile court held the six-month status review hearing on June 14, 2007. The juvenile court found that returning the Twins to Mother’s and Father’s custody would place them at substantial risk of suffering detriment. The juvenile court ordered that the Twins continue to be placed outside of Mother’s and Father’s home. The court found that Mother and Father had made progress in their case plans, but had not completed the case plans. The court ordered that Mother and Father continue to participate in services. Further, the court ordered that the Twins permanent plan would be to return home to Mother and Father.
E. TWELVE-MONTH STATUS REVIEW
On June 21, 2007, shortly after the six-month review hearing, Father contacted the Department social worker. Father admitted that he used methamphetamine, and was caught trying to use another person’s urine at a drug test. Father was dismissed from the Family Preservation Court due to using methamphetamine and trying to hide his drug usage. On June 20, 2007, Mother admitted to her counselor that she used methamphetamine and would test “dirty.” Mother was allowed to continue in Family Preservation Court.
At the time of the 12-month status review, A.F. had run away from her foster placement, and her whereabouts were unknown. A.F.’s boyfriend seemed to be “the center of her life, ” and she was caught with marijuana on several occasions. A.F. had been avoiding her friends since she began dating her boyfriend. The Twins were doing well in their foster placement.
Mother was unemployed, but looking for a job. Mother left the Family Preservation Court, and began attending the MOM’s Program, where she received drug counseling and parenting classes. Mother tested negative for drugs twice at the new program; however Mother missed numerous individual counseling appointments.
Father worked part time installing fire sprinklers. Father started the Riverside County Substance Abuse Program in July 2007, but was discharged from the program on August 21, 2007, due to a positive drug test and poor attendance. Father started the Desert Drug Program on October 16, 2007. Father tested positive twice for methamphetamine between October 16 and October 25. Father began his parenting classes on October 24.
Mother and Father had supervised visits with the Twins for one hour per week. The visits appeared to be appropriate. The Twins seemed happy to visit with Mother and Father, and appeared sad when the visits ended. Mother continued to live in the two-bedroom mobile home in Palm Springs; however, Father moved into his father’s house. Father moved out of the mobile home so that Mother would be able to have weekend visits with the children. Ultimately, the Department recommended that the Twins be returned to Mother’s custody, under the Department’s supervision.
The juvenile court held a 12-month status hearing on December 11, 2007. The juvenile court found that Mother was making satisfactory progress with her case plan, but that she had not yet completed the plan. The court found that Father made adequate progress with his case plan, but that he had not completed his case plan. The juvenile court ordered that Mother and Father continue to participate in services, and that the children be placed with Mother under the Department’s supervision.
F. DETENTION NO. 2
On December 14, 2007, the Twins were returned to Mother’s care. The Department social worker instructed Mother and Father that Father was not allowed to be in Mother’s home or the Twins would be detained again. On December 18, 2007, Mother and Father were arrested for check fraud. Mother and Father were arrested at Mother’s residence. A Palm Springs police detective informed the Department social worker that Mother had a suspended three-year prison sentence, which Mother would have to serve. The Department detained the Twins. The Department filed a supplemental petition against Mother and Father. (§ 387.) On December 26, 2007, at a contested detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered that the Twins be placed in Mother’s care. On January 17, 2008, the court dismissed the petition filed on December 20, 2007.
G. DETENTION NO. 3
On March 17, 2008, a Department social worker made a routine, unannounced, visit to Mother’s home. The social worker was greeted at the home by a Ms. Davidson. The floor of the home was covered with dirty diapers, trash, and debris. The Twins’ diapers were full and sagging. The home smelled of smoke and decaying food. Ms. Davidson informed the social worker that Mother asked her to watch the twins on March 16, but Mother never returned home. Ms. Davidson contacted various police departments and discovered that Mother and Father had been arrested. Mother was charged with burglary, receiving stolen goods, possession of an identification card to commit forgery, and possession of a controlled substance. Father was charged with burglary, receiving stolen goods, and possession of an identification card to commit forgery.
While the Department social worker was at the mobile home, three undercover police cars arrived. The police handcuffed Ms. Davidson and her boyfriend, and questioned them about their involvement with Mother and Father. The Department social worker detained the Twins. On March 19, 2008, the Department filed a supplemental petition against Mother and Father. (§ 387.) The petition alleged that Mother was incarcerated and that she left the Twins with a caretaker who was unable to provide them with care, support, and protection. The petition further alleged that Mother’s actions placed the Twins at risk of suffering serious harm.
On March 20, 2008, Mother and Father attended the hearing on the supplemental petition-both were in custody. The juvenile court found that placing the Twins in Mother’s and Father’s care would be contrary to the Twins’ welfare. The court ordered that the Twins be placed in a foster home or other suitable facility. The court advised Mother and Father that services would not exceed the statutory timeline of six months.
H. JURISDICTION NO. 2
The Twins were placed in a foster home in Beaumont. On April 5, 2008, A.F. was found by Moreno Valley police officers, who arrested her for shoplifting. A.F. was then placed in a foster home in Moreno Valley. The juvenile court found the allegations in the supplemental petition to be true. The juvenile court continued the children as dependents of the court, and ordered the children placed in the care and custody of the Department.
I. DISPOSITION NO. 2 AND 18-MONTH STATUS REVIEW
On April 29, 2008, Father was sentenced to prison for a term of 16 months. The Department tried to locate Father within the prison system, but the search was unsuccessful. On April 4, 2008, Mother was released from custody with the understanding that she would voluntarily surrender on June 9, 2008, in order to serve a two-year prison sentence. From April 4, 2008, until May 12, 2008, Mother did not contact the Department, and her whereabouts were unknown. Mother was discharged from the MOM’s program, due to missed appointments.
The Department’s report is conflicting, at one point it reflects that Father was sentenced to a term of 16 months, but at another point it reflects that Father was sentenced to a term of 18 months.
On May 6, 2008, A.F. visited with the Twins. The Twins were “thrilled” to see A.F. and A.F. was appropriate with the Twins. A.F. told the Department social worker that she needed to be with the Twins. On June 3, 2008, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing on the supplemental petition; however, the hearing also appeared to serve as an 18-month status review. The juvenile court ordered that the children continue to be placed in a foster home or other suitable facility. The court found that Mother’s and Father’s progress with their case plan was unsatisfactory. The court terminated reunification services for Mother and Father. The juvenile court ordered that A.F.’s permanent plan would be a planned permanent living arrangement, and that the Twins’ permanent plan would be adoption.
A “planned permanent living arrangement” can include long term foster care. (In re Stuart S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 203, 209; see also 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(h)(3).)
J. REQUEST FOR FORMAL FINDINGS
After the second disposition hearing, Mother was serving a two-year prison sentence in Chowchilla. The Department repeatedly contacted Mother’s prison counselor to assess Mother’s progress, but did not receive a response. Father served a 16-month prison sentence in Coalinga. Father was released on parole on January 25, 2009. During Mother’s and Father’s prison terms, they did not visit with A.F. or the Twins. Father visited the Twins once in February 2009, and the visit went well. While on parole, Father worked odd jobs in the construction field.
A.F. ran away from her foster placement, and was missing from approximately June 23, 2008, to January 28, 2009. When A.F. was located, she was placed in a foster home in Moreno Valley. On October 1, 2008, the juvenile court ordered that a group home placement would be the permanent plan for A.F. The court ordered that A.F. be provided with services to transition her from foster care to independent living, because A.F. was over the age of 16.
A.F. and the Twins had weekly supervised visits from May 6, 2008, until June 15, 2008. The visits between the siblings went well. The visits ended due to A.F. running away from her placement. The visits resumed when A.F. returned, and the visits were positive. The Twins exhibited speech delays. The Twins’ foster parents were hoping to adopt them. The Twins were bonded to their foster parents, whom they lived with for approximately one year.
On April 1, 2009, the juvenile court held a hearing on the Department’s request for formal findings related to the November 2006 petition. The court found that returning the children to Mother’s and Father’s care would place the children at a substantial risk of suffering detriment (§ 300, subd. (b)) and that Mother and Father had left the children without any provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). The court noted that A.F. was not placed with the Twins, and efforts to place A.F. with the twins would not be appropriate; however, the court found that “[s]ibiling relationships have been maintained.” (§ 16002). The court found that Mother’s and Father’s progress had been unsatisfactory; however, the juvenile court reinstated reunification services for Mother and Father.
K. REQUEST FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Father requested assistance with his first and last month’s housing rent. The juvenile court granted Father’s request. Although the juvenile court ordered the Department to provide housing assistance, it appears from the record that Father never received any assistance with his housing costs.
L. REUNIFICATION SERVICES REVIEW
As of August 11, 2009, A.F. was placed in a “non-related family member’s home, ” in Desert Hot Springs. A.F. attended school at the Adult Education Center, and worked part-time for a hotel. A.F. was due to turn 18 years old in October 2009. The Twins continued to be placed in their Beaumont foster home. The Twins attended weekly speech therapy sessions for their speech impediments.
Mother remained incarcerated in Chowchilla, and was not scheduled to be released until May 29, 2010. Father was living at his father’s house in Palm Springs. Father had been unsuccessful in finding another place to live. Father was working part time at a tire store. Both Mother and Father completed their required classes.
On December 21, 2009, the juvenile court held a hearing to review the family reunification services plan. The juvenile court found that returning the Twins to Mother and Father would place them at a substantial risk of suffering detriment. The court continued the Twins in their foster care placement. The court found that Mother’s and Father’s progress was adequate but incomplete. The court again terminated Mother’s and Father’s reunification services.
M. POST-PERMANENCY REVIEW
Mother remained incarcerated in Chowchilla, and was schedule to be released on May 29, 2010. Mother had not seen the children since March 2008. Father completed his court ordered case plan. Father tested negative for drugs at all of his random drug tests, and his parole was scheduled to end on February 24, 2010. Father intermittently worked. Father missed five of his 12 visitation appointments with the Twins. The visits with Father went well; however, the Twins referred to Father as “‘the man, ’” and did not seem to have a strong attachment to Father-neither child asked for Father between visits. The Twins visited with A.F. on a biweekly basis.
The Department’s report in the clerk’s transcript reflects that A.F. visited the twins “bi-weekly.” The reporter’s transcript reflects that A.F. visited the twins “every other week.” Based upon the reporter’s transcript, we infer that “bi-weekly” means every other week, rather than twice per week.
On February 25, 2010, the juvenile court held a post-permanency planning hearing. The court ordered that the Twins continue in their foster care placement. The juvenile court ordered that the Twins’ permanent plan would be a “concurrent plan of adoption, ” which meant that adoption would be the permanent plan if reunification efforts were unsuccessful.
N. MEDIATION AND TERMINATION
A.F. “aged out” of the juvenile court system in October 2009; however, the Twins maintained their twice per month visits with her, and the visits went well. A.F. felt very connected to the Twins because she claimed to have raised the Twins until they went into foster care due to Mother “never” being at home. The foster parents said that they would be willing to maintain contact with A.F. postadoption. On May 29, 2010, Mother entered the Mental Health Systems’ New Hope Women and Children’s Residential Treatment Program, in Beaumont. Father was receiving unemployment and did not have a suitable living arrangement for the Twins.
On June 1, 2010, the juvenile court started the hearing to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The Twins’ attorney expressed concern about preserving the Twins’ relationship with A.F. The Twins’ attorney argued that the termination of parental rights should not take place if the prospective adoptive parents were not willing to continue the Twins’ relationship with A.F. The Twins’ attorney requested that the juvenile court order the parties to mediation for the purpose of creating a postadoption contact agreement. The attorney for the prospective adoptive parents, who had become de facto parents, argued that the sibling exception did not apply; however, the attorney conceded that his clients would submit to mediation.
The juvenile court referred the case to mediation for a postadoption contact agreement. The court ordered that A.F. be included in the mediation agreement. At the mediation, the prospective adoptive parents verbally agreed that (1) Father and A.F. would be allowed quarterly supervised visits with the Twins; (2) visits with Mother would be supervised and would commence with the assistance of a licensed counselor to reintroduce Mother to the Twins; (3) Mother, Father, and A.F. could have regular contact with the Twins via mail; (4) Mother, Father, and A.F. could have monthly telephone contact with the Twins on the fourth Sunday of each month; and (5) the prospective adoptive parents would update Mother, Father, and A.F. once per year on the Twins’ notable achievements, e.g. athletic and academic honors.
On June 7, 2010, the juvenile court resumed the termination hearing. Mother’s attorney expressed concern that the verbal mediation agreement was not enforceable by the court. A.F.’s attorney argued that if the court terminated parental rights, then A.F. may not be able to see the Twins again, since a formal, written, postadoption contact agreement was not submitted. The prospective adoptive parents/de facto parents’ attorney informed the court that the de facto parents did not want to make the verbal agreement a binding contract; however, they were willing to follow the agreement. Mother’s attorney objected to the court terminating parental rights, because doing so would interfere with the Twins’ and A.F.’s relationship. A.F.’s attorney also objected to termination, because it would “destroy the sibling relationship, ” since there would be no means of enforcing visitation between the Twins and A.F.
The juvenile court found that the Twins needed a stable home; the de facto parents had provided a stable home; the Twins call the de facto parents “‘mommy’” and “‘daddy’”; and it was likely the Twins would be adopted. The court found that terminating parental rights would not be detrimental to the Twins, and that none of the exceptions to termination were applicable. The court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The court ordered that A.F.’s and Father’s visitation schedule continue, and that Mother be given supervised visits once per month.
DISCUSSION
A. SIBLING EXCEPTION
Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because the juvenile court should have applied the sibling exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) We disagree.
After a court has terminated a parent’s reunification services, the focus of the dependency proceedings shifts to the children’s needs of permanency and stability. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52-53.) Accordingly, when selecting a permanent plan for a child, the Legislature has directed that adoption be a court’s first choice, whenever possible. (Id. at p. 53.) However, the Legislature has provided for exceptions to this preference for adoption. (Ibid.) While adoption remains the primary preference, under “exceptional circumstances” a juvenile court may choose an option other than adoption, such as guardianship, for the child’s permanent plan. (Ibid.)
One of the exceptions to the adoption preference is known as the “sibling exception.” The sibling exception provides that parental rights shall not be terminated if the termination would be detrimental to the child because it would result in a “substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
We review the juvenile court’s sibling exception determination for substantial evidence. In applying this standard, “we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record [in the light] most favorabl[e] to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citation.]” (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251.)
The Twins were born in May 2005, and A.F. was born in October 1991; A.F. was approximately 14 years older than the Twins. A.F. claimed that she essentially raised the Twins, until they were taken into foster care, due to Mother’s absence from the home. The Twins and A.F. were placed in foster care in November 2006. A.F. was at a different foster placement than the Twins. As of November 28, 2007, A.F. ran away from her foster placement, and her whereabouts were unknown. Approximately four months later, on April 5, 2008, A.F. was arrested for shoplifting, and was again placed in foster care. We infer that A.F. did not visit the Twins during the four months that she was a runaway.
On May 6, 2008, A.F. visited with the Twins; they were “thrilled” to see her. On or about June 23, 2008, A.F. again ran away from her foster placement, and her whereabouts were unknown. Approximately seven months later, on January 28, 2009, A.F. was returned to the care of the Department. We infer that A.F. did not visit the twins during the seven months that she was missing. Upon A.F.’s return, she visited with the Twins twice per month. It appears that A.F. consistently visited the Twins from February 2009 through June 2010.
As to the factor of being raised in the same home, the Twins were placed in foster care when they were approximately 18 months old. The Twins were in foster care for approximately three and a half years. A.F. was missing for 11 months of that three and a half year period, and it appears that A.F. did not live in the same foster home as the Twins. In other words, the Twins lived with A.F. for approximately 18 months, while they were babies, and did not share a home with her again.
In regard to sharing significant common experiences, we infer that the Twins and A.F. did not share significant common experiences, due to the age of the Twins when they lived with A.F. As to the bond between A.F. and the Twins, we note that the Twins were “thrilled” to see A.F. when she visited them on May 6, 2008. However, it is also notable that A.F. ran away approximately six weeks later and was missing for approximately seven months. Consequently, while it appears that the Twins have a bond with A.F., it is difficult to ascertain the strength of the bond, since A.F. chose to run away for months at a time.
In regard to the Twins’ best interests, the record reflects that the Twins were bonded to their prospective adoptive parents, with whom they lived for over a year. Additionally, the Twins referred to the prospective adoptive parents as “mommy” and “daddy.” This evidence reflects that the Twins’ best interests would likely be served by a permanent placement in the prospective adoptive parents’ home, since the Twins had a parent-child bond with the prospective adoptive parents.
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the record contains substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that there were not compelling or exceptional circumstances concerning the Twins’ relationship with A.F., such that maintaining the Twins’ relationship with A.F. overcomes the benefit of permanence provided by adoption.
Mother argues that after A.F. turned 17, A.F. became more serious about her future. Mother highlights the evidence that A.F. was going to school, working, and regularly visiting the Twins. Mother argues that the evidence reflects the Twins were thrilled to see A.F. and that the visits between the siblings were positive. We agree with Mother that there is evidence supporting the application of the sibling exception; however, as set forth ante, we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re Megan S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 251.) Accordingly, while some of the evidence may support the application of the sibling exception, there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s ruling. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Mother’s argument.
B. DUE PROCESS
Father contends that the juvenile court violated his due process rights by terminating his parental rights to the Twins based upon his lack of housing. We disagree.
The Department contends that Father’s appeal is untimely, because his contention should been raised in a writ petition following the December 2009 hearing, wherein the juvenile court terminated his reunification services. We choose to address the merits of Father’s contention, because the issue is easily resolved. (See generally In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 206-208 [discussing the failure to seek prompt writ relief in a dependency proceeding].)
“Parents have a fundamental interest in the care, companionship and custody of their children. For this reason, they have certain due process protections in juvenile dependency proceedings. [Citation.] Before the state may sever a parent’s rights in his natural child, due process mandates [that] the state’s allegations be supported by evidence that is, at a minimum, clear and convincing. [Citation.] Once the state has shown a parent [to be] unfit, the juvenile court may then assume the child’s interests have diverged from those of his or her natural parent. [Citation.] However, ‘until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.’ [Citation.]” (In re G.S.R. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1210-1211.) Poverty, even abject poverty that results in homelessness, does not, by itself, make a person an unfit parent. (Id. at p. 1212.) We review the record de novo to determine whether Father’s due process rights were violated. (Conservatorship of Tian L. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1028.)
The juvenile court held a selection and implementation hearing on December 21, 2009. Father’s attorney argued that Father had fractured his ankle, and used most of his savings while recovering from the injury. Father’s attorney asserted that Father would be in a position to care for the Twins in “a month or two, ” “as soon [as] he saves up something.” Father’s attorney argued, “[F]ather’s only obstacle in getting the children is housing.”
The Department argued that Father’s lack of housing was only one problem; the Department asserted that the primary problem was Father’s inability to parent on a day-to-day basis. The Department argued that Father lacked the “abilities and capabilities” to provide the Twins with stability and continuity. The Department pointed to Father’s various incarcerations, and argued, “It’s not about housing, it’s about safety and stability.” The juvenile court stated that it reviewed the various reports and records, and then terminated Father’s services.
Our review of the record reveals that it was not Father’s lack of housing, in isolation, that caused his parental rights to be terminated. Rather, Father’s lack of housing was a symptom of his general lack of reliability and stability. Father had a home when the initial detention occurred, but he was abusing drugs, so he could not care for the Twins. Father was dismissed from various rehabilitation programs. Father was incarcerated during a portion of the dependency proceedings. Father then moved in with his father, and the Twins could not live at the paternal grandfather’s home. Father then fractured his ankle and spent most of his $3,000 of savings while recovering from his injury. Father failed to demonstrate during the three and a half years of proceedings that he could provide a safe, stable, drug-free home for the Twins, while also being employed. When Father had his own home, he was on drugs, and when Father was off drugs, he was living at a residence where the Twins were not permitted. Father did not demonstrate that he was capable of providing the Twins with a safe, stable, drug-free environment. Accordingly, we conclude that Father’s due process rights were not violated.
DISPOSITION
The judgment, as to both appellants, is affirmed.
We concur: KING Acting P. J., CODRINGTON J.