Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Elizabeth Kim, Juvenile Court No. CK76820 Referee.
Law Office of Emma Castro, Ellen L. Bacon and Molly Walker for Petitioner.
No appearance on behalf of Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.
Jose G., the father of J.G. and I.G., the children, has filed a mandate petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 challenging the setting of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The father stabbed the mother to death in the youngsters’ presence. I.G. was less than three years of age. The juvenile court ordered reunification services be provided to the father who was awaiting trial on the murder charge which would not occur for two to three years. As both children were part of a sibling group where one of them was less than three years of age, the juvenile court terminated reunification services after six months as authorized by sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(1)(B) and 366.21, subdivision (e). No abuse of discretion occurred because the substantial risk of detriment to the children, who were present when the father killed the mother, is manifest if they were returned to his custody and there was no basis for concluding the he could complete the reunification program because of his incarceration. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1009, fn. 4; In re Aryanna C. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1242-1243.) Finally, there is no merit to the father’s contention the juvenile court violated section 366.21, subdivision (e) by failed to consider that his custody status impaired his ability to complete some of the programs.
Future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The petition is denied.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.KRIEGLER, J.