Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. J969655, Marilyn Mordetsky, Juvenile Court Referee, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. .
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
DOI TODD, J.
Appellant Ronald A. (father) appeals from the juvenile dependency court’s denial of his two petitions for modification made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. Father contends the juvenile court denied him due process by refusing to allow him to present live testimony and certain documentary evidence in support of his petitions. We find no denial of due process and affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Father has at least six children, three of whom are the subjects of this appeal—daughter M.A. (age 17), and sons J.A. (age 15) and R.A. (age 14). Three of father’s older daughters (P.A., Jal.A. and A.A.) were dependents of the juvenile court but are now adults. In November 1999, after father had been released from jail on a child molestation charge, respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a section 300 petition alleging numerous counts against father and the children’s mother, who is not a party to this appeal. As sustained in February 2000, the section 300 petition alleged, among other things, that father physically and emotionally abused the children and engaged in domestic violence; sexually abused P.A., Jal. A. and M.A. and their siblings; had a history of substance abuse, including cocaine; and a criminal history of convictions for inflicting corporal punishment on a spouse, burglary and possession for sale of narcotics. The children were placed with the S. foster family in December 1999 and declared dependents of the juvenile court. Father was denied reunification services and contact with the children. Father appealed this disposition order, along with the disposition order in a separate case involving father’s alleged sexual abuse of A.A. The appeals were consolidated and we affirmed the juvenile court’s disposition orders in both cases (In re Ashley A. (Nov. 27, 2001, B142952 [nonpub. opn.]).
The statements of oral copulation and vaginal and anal intercourse made by the children were consistent with molestation incidents described by them to the police and other social workers. During the first 18 months following disposition, the children had no contact with father and consistently expressed their objection to having visits or telephone contact with him. In February 2001, the children’s therapist stated that none of the children had recanted any of the charges of sexual abuse by father. A year later, father was allowed to have monitored telephone calls with those children who were willing to talk to him, but these were short lived, as the children were uncomfortable with the calls, and the court ordered no contact between father and the children, including telephone calls.
In June 2002, the children had a conjoint therapy session with father, and unanimously stated that they did not enjoy the session and did not want to repeat it. The following month, the juvenile court allowed father to have visits with the children in a therapeutic setting, but no telephone contact. No contact between father and the children was reported for three years until the department’s July 2005 report. The department reported that during the preceding six months father had been having monthly visits with M.A., J.A. and R.A. at the department’s offices. The social worker monitored two of the visits and observed no closeness between father and the children. The visits nevertheless continued. During one visit in May 2006, father began questioning R.A. about his statements contained in a report and became so forceful that R.A. began crying. When the children’s foster mother tried to stop the visit, father began yelling and cursing at her. Thereafter, R.A. no longer wanted visits with father.
The orders denying father’s October 8 and November 5, 2008 section 388 petitions are affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.