Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Elizabeth Riggs, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed., Super. Ct. No. SJ11432.
NARES, J.
Jaime R., the father of Giovanni R., appeals the order denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). Jaime challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the denial of services. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS
Jaime and Priscilla C. are the parents of Giovanni who was the subject of an earlier child dependency case when he was 11 months old. The 2005 case resolved with Giovanni being reunified with Priscilla after six months of services, but not with Jaime, whose participation in services was, at best, minimal and late.
Priscilla is not a party in this appeal. In addition to Giovanni, Priscilla has a younger daughter, who is not a subject of this appeal. Jaime is not the father of this child.
On February 27, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed the current dependency petition (§ 300, subd. (b)) after receiving a tip that Priscilla was selling drugs out of her residence and exposing Giovanni, then five weeks shy of his third birthday, and his little sister to drug dealing. Police conducted a search of the residence and found 6.8 grams of marijuana, two pipes, a "bong," a methamphetamine pipe and a scale with methamphetamine residue. Agency took the children into protective custody; police cited Priscilla but did not arrest her. At the time, Jaime was incarcerated for burglary and receiving stolen property.
Jaime was sentenced to 32 months in prison. Social worker Erin Lininger was unable to contact Jaime through his counselor at the prison. Lininger recommended services be provided to Priscilla, but not to Jaime because of his prison sentence. She also noted his inability or unwillingness to protect Giovanni in the past as shown by the previous dependency case, his failure to make substantive progress in the previous dependency case, and his history of drug use and criminal activities.
At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on May 17, Lininger testified that she recommended against providing services for Jaime, in part to avoid a delay in finding a permanent placement for Giovanni in the event that Priscilla was unable to reunify with him. Lininger said she was obligated to undertake concurrent planning for Giovanni in that event.
The social worker also testified that she had not spoken with Jaime, and her efforts to communicate with him were unsuccessful. Those efforts included mailing him two or three letters, one of which was returned to her. Lininger said Jaime is allowed to use the telephone in the prison and make outgoing calls.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared Giovanni a dependent child, placed him in a relative's home and ordered Priscilla to comply with her case plan. The court found that providing reunification services to Jaime would be detrimental to the child and ordered no services be provided to him, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).
DISCUSSION
Jaime contends there was insufficient evidence of detriment to the child to justify the denial of services under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). He is mistaken.
A juvenile court's order denying reunification services is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484.)
Section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) provides that the juvenile court shall offer reasonable services to a parent who is incarcerated or institutionalized,
"unless the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, those services would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, the court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child bonding, the length of the sentence, the nature of the treatment, the nature of the crime or illness, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and, for children 10 years of age or older, the child's attitude toward the implementation of family reunification services, and any other appropriate factors. Reunification services are subject to the applicable time limitations imposed in subdivision (a)."
There is no requirement that all of the factors listed in section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) exist; the statute does not specify how much weight should be given to a factor in determining detriment. (Edgar O. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 13, 18.)
Substantial evidence supported the court's finding of detriment and denial of reunification services for Jaime. Giovanni was not quite three years old when he was taken into protective custody, and his sister was one year old. Reunification services in this case were limited to six months under section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) and (3). Jaime's prison term far exceeded the six-month period of services for children under three years old and/or siblings of a child under three years old. No amount of services within that six-month period would have enabled Jaime to be reunited with Giovanni.
Regardless of the time limitations in section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) and (3), if services were offered to Jaime, and Priscilla did not reunify with Giovanni, the boy's permanency planning would be delayed until Jaime was released which is an unreasonable period of time for a young child to wait in limbo. " 'There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty over whether he is to remain in his current "home," . . . especially when such uncertainty is prolonged.' " (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 988.) Moreover, Giovanni had lived with Jaime for less than one-half of his life and the court could reasonably infer that the father-son bond, if any, was not strong. Furthermore, there was no showing that a denial of services to Jaime would adversely affect Giovanni.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., BENKE, J.
On September 20, Jaime filed an abandonment of this appeal. We exercise our discretion to refuse to dismiss the appeal. (See DeGarmo v. Goldman (1942) 19 Cal.2d 755, 768; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c).)