Opinion
F080276
05-26-2020
In re E.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS V., Defendant and Appellant.
Melissa Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Merced, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 18JP-00109-B, 18JP-00109-C, 18JP-00109-D)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. Melissa Chaitin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Merced, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Carlos V. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating his parental rights to his now four-year-old daughter Emma, three-year-old daughter Isabella and 22-month-old daughter Vanessa. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) The children's mother, Vanessa S. (mother), did not appeal. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father's court-appointed attorney informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father's behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Father filed a letter but failed to make the requisite showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In August 2018, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) responded to a report the parents were arrested after evading law enforcement with then one-month-old Vanessa in the car. Sheriff's deputies pursued father for 30 minutes and were only able to force him to stop after colliding into his vehicle multiple times, breaking the vehicle windows and tasing him. He had a firearm in his possession, which resulted in a negotiation standoff. During the standoff, mother attempted to get in between father and the deputies with Vanessa in her arms and yelled, " 'Don't shoot him!' " One of the deputies had to remove Vanessa from mother to keep her from getting hurt. The agency took the children into protective custody and placed them with maternal relatives.
The agency also took mother's five-year-old son from another relationship into protective custody. He is not a subject of this appeal. However, his case paralleled that of his half-siblings and mother's parental rights to him were terminated at the section 366.26 hearing in September 2019. --------
Father told the responding social worker he had only cared for the children intermittently for short periods over the years. He was homeless, living in hotels and his car. He denied substance abuse but reported being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder after experiencing family trauma and loss. He had never received mental health services. Mother reported she and Vanessa were homeless and lived in hotels or with friends for the prior four months. The other children were in the care of their maternal grandmother.
The maternal grandmother and maternal aunt described the parents as "absent" and said the family had to share in the care and supervision of the children. The aunt said there had been domestic violence between the parents. Mother had come to her home multiple times with facial injuries as recently as the week before. The social worker observed that mother had a light purple bruise beneath her eye, indicative of a fading black eye. Mother denied that father injured her, claiming she had a " 'fight with a girl.' " According to the agency's records, a report was received in June 2017, alleging father physically assaulted mother and shot at her in front of the children. The allegations were substantiated and mother was advised to stay away from father for the safety of the children.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained pursuant to a dependency petition filed by the agency. Father appeared in custody at the hearing and was appointed counsel.
At a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in October 2018, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents pursuant to the petition, ordered them removed from parental custody and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services. Father was required to complete assignments in the anger management for substance abuse and mental health clients workbook and a parenting workbook while in custody and enroll in a domestic violence program upon his release from custody.
Father remained in custody throughout the first six months of reunification. He was transferred to state prison in January 2019 and was eligible for parole in July 2030. In February 2019, he received a certificate for completing a parenting program. Meanwhile, mother was not participating in services, visiting the children or communicating with the agency. Nor was she cooperating with the agency in its efforts to have Emma and Isabella evaluated for slight developmental delays they were exhibiting. The children were placed with two maternal family members and saw each other on a regular basis. The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services at the six-month review hearing.
The juvenile court conducted the six-month review hearing in April 2019. Father was not present in court. The court terminated reunification services for the parents and set a section 366.26 hearing. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452.)
The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing. The children were doing well in their placement and their relative caretakers were committed to adopting them and continuing sibling visits.
Father appeared with his attorney at the section 366.26 hearing in September 2019. Mother did not appear and her whereabouts were unknown. Father's attorney informed the juvenile court father understood it was not possible for him to take care of the children. However, he wanted the court to know that he completed booklets on parenting and anger management and received certificates of completion. His concern was placement. He wanted the children placed with their paternal grandmother or wanted his family to be able to visit the children and send letters and pictures. He was worried his family would be excluded from the children's lives because there was animosity between the maternal and paternal relatives. Father asked for a continuance of the hearing so he could discuss the situation with the paternal grandparents.
The juvenile court denied father's request for a continuance, finding no good cause. The court supported the families' efforts to repair their relationships for the benefit of the children but found that father did not have standing to raise the issue of placement and declined to decide the issue. The court found by clear and convincing evidence the children were likely to be adopted, no exception to adoption applied and terminated parental rights. The court designated the relative caretakers as the prospective adoptive parents.
DISCUSSION
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, the court will order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to adoption).
Father did not challenge evidence of the children's adoptability or argue any of the exceptions to adoption applied at the section 366.26 hearing. Nor does he do so on appeal. Rather, he seeks supervised visitation for his relatives with the children and asks the assistance of this court.
It is not our role, as a reviewing court, to issue visitation orders. Such orders are issued by the juvenile court. Consequently, we cannot grant father the relief he seeks. Further, since father does not raise any issues from the section 366.26 hearing, he has failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists on this record. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.