Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD227611
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
R.A., father of the child, appeals from orders terminating his parental rights and placing the child with maternal relatives. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant, in propria persona, contends the court erred in failing to place the child with paternal relatives and in terminating his parental rights prior to the time he could establish his innocence in his criminal proceedings. We affirm.
Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Respondent has declined to file a brief in this matter.
FACTS
The five-month-old child was removed from parental custody in June 2008 following the death of his half sibling due to blunt force trauma while in the parents’ care. The parents insisted the half sibling’s death was due to natural causes or was, at most, accidental. However, the autopsy report provided evidence of multiple blunt force injuries and concluded the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) recommended denial of services as to both the parents.
Paternal relatives were assessed for placement at the outset, but the interested family moved out of state and were no longer considered. Maternal relatives, who were already caring for an older half sibling of the child, also wanted to have the child placed with them. The mother did not want the child placed with her relatives because of ongoing family and control issues.
In October 2008, the juvenile court sustained the petition, denied services to both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In November 2008, the social worker informed the court that one paternal great aunt was willing to take the child but not a second child the mother was expecting. However, a second paternal aunt was willing to take that second child but not the child. The maternal aunt was likely to be approved for placement of the child.
The report for the section 366.26 hearing stated the parents were in custody and there had been no visits with the child. The child was healthy, meeting developmental milestones and had no behavioral problems. The second child, the infant sibling, was placed in the same foster home as the child. The current foster parent was willing to adopt but believed placement of the child with the maternal relatives who had maintained contact with him was in the child’s best interest. The Department also recommended placement with the maternal aunt, noting that, while the paternal relatives had been approved for placement, the child and his infant sibling would be separated and that neither of the paternal great aunts who had expressed willingness to take the child and the infant sibling had asked about the child’s well-being or requested visits.
A subsequent addendum to the report more fully evaluated the potential relative placement choices and again concluded placement with the maternal aunt was in the child’s best interests.
At the selection and implementation hearing, a paternal aunt addressed the court stating she would be happy to adopt the child and his infant sibling although she had not visited with them or even seen them. Through counsel, both parents objected to placement with the maternal aunt, raising issues of drug use, poor parenting and the presence of unapproved individuals in the home. The court observed that the parents’ reasons for objecting to the child’s placement with the maternal aunt had changed from earlier concerns limited to family and control issues and had not been raised prior to the hearing. The court terminated parental rights and adopted the recommendation to place the child with the maternal aunt.
DISCUSSION
I.
Appellant contends the court should have placed the child with the paternal relatives. We disagree. Assuming arguendo that appellant has standing to assert the placement issue, the evidence supports the juvenile court’s order. (Cf. Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035.)
Pursuant to section 361.3, preferential consideration is to be given to a request by a relative for placement of a child who has been removed from parental custody. (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) The statute lists various factors to be considered, including: (1) the best interest of the child; (2) the wishes of the parents; (3) placement of siblings in the same home; and (4) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6).)
Both paternal and maternal relatives had requested placement and been approved. The parents did not want the child placed with the maternal relatives, apparently due to ongoing friction between the mother and the maternal relatives. However, the child would not be placed with his infant sibling if placed with paternal relatives and the paternal relatives had made no effort to establish or maintain contact with the child or even to inquire about him. Given the evidence, placement with the maternal aunt was in the child’s best interest. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the placement.
II.
Appellant contends his parental rights should not have been terminated until he had the opportunity to establish his factual innocence in the criminal courts.
To challenge the evidentiary support for the jurisdictional finding that the child was at risk of serious physical harm due to injuries inflicted by a parent (§ 300, subd. (a)), failure of a parent to protect the minor (§ 300, subd. (b)) or because a parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect (§ 300, subd. (f)), appellant had to seek review of the judgment of disposition. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Having failed to do so, he cannot now assert the evidence was insufficient to establish jurisdiction. (In re Daniel K. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 661, 667; John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405.)
According to the evidence, the child was likely to be adopted and no exception to the preference for adoption was shown. (§ 366.26, subds. (b), (c).) The court was required to terminate parental rights. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.)
Appellant also seeks ongoing visitation with the child. However, once parental rights are terminated, the parent does not have the right to any ongoing contact with the child. Any contact which may occur will be at the discretion of the adoptive parent or, eventually, the child himself.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P. J., HULL, J.