Opinion
F076409
05-22-2018
In re ADAM W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN W., Defendant and Appellant.
Landon C. Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15CEJ300027-1, 15CEJ300027-2)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary L. Green, Commissioner. Landon C. Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
John W. is the father of Adam and Levi, now six and five years old, respectively. In September 2016, the juvenile court established a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children after John failed to reunify with them. On October 3, 2017, at a postpermanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3), the court terminated its dependency jurisdiction over the children but retained its jurisdiction over them as wards of the legal guardianship.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
John appealed from the juvenile court's October 3, 2017, ruling. After reviewing the juvenile court record, John's court-appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on John's behalf. This court granted John 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.)
John submitted a letter requesting reinstatement of reunification services so he can learn more about his son's autism and of his educational rights so that he can track how he is doing in school.
We conclude John failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the postpermanency plan review hearing and dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In January 2015, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took then three-year-old Adam and two-year-old Levi into protective custody after John left them unattended at a fast food restaurant for approximately two hours. He returned and picked up only one of the children and left the other unattended at the restaurant. He was later located with the child in the shopping center appearing to be under the influence. The department placed the children with a foster mother who would become their prospective legal guardian.
John told the investigating social worker he and the children's mother, Danielle, were married but had been separated for about a month and he was caring for the children alone. He claimed Danielle had a mental illness. He denied having any mental health problems but said he was "slow."
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services.
John participated in his services and regularly visited the children. He was loving and affectionate with them but had difficulty managing them, especially Adam, who was autistic. At the six-month review hearing in November 2015, the juvenile court found John had made good progress and continued reunification services for him. The department subsequently referred John to Dr. Timothy Cox for therapeutic supervised visitation to help him understand the children's delays and adequately supervise them. The department also referred him to a specialist to help him understand and parent an autistic child.
Although John was assertive in completing his services, he was unable to show he could utilize the skills taught to him to redirect and care for the children. Dr. Cox opined that John was unable to retain even "basic" parenting skills. He believed John lacked the parenting skills to safely manage the children and cautioned that the situation would grow more dire as the children grew older and their needs became more complex. John also had difficulty controlling his anger. He argued with and harassed the children's care provider, and Dr. Cox feared for his safety while with John and locked his door when John left after their sessions. In April 2016, Dr. Cox terminated John's visits because of his aggressive behavior.
In May 2016, following a contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for September 2016. The court also suspended John's visits. John filed an extraordinary writ petition which we dismissed.
(John W. v. The Superior Court of Fresno County (Sep. 7, 2016, F073826) [nonpub. opn.].) --------
In September 2016, the juvenile court established a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children and set a postpermanency plan review hearing for March 2017. In the interim, the court granted John's request for therapeutic supervised visitation with discretion for telephone and written contact.
In September 2017, the juvenile court found legal guardianship remained the appropriate permanent plan for the children and set the next review hearing for October 3, 2017. On October 3, the court terminated its dependency jurisdiction and retained jurisdiction of the children as wards of the guardianship. John appeared at the hearing with his attorney and objected.
DISCUSSION
John does not challenge the juvenile court's rulings issued at the October 3, 2017, review hearing. Instead, he asks for reinstatement of reunification services so he can learn more about autism and better understand Adam. He also asks for reinstatement of his educational rights so he can find out how Adam is doing in school.
We conclude John failed to identify any arguable issues that merit briefing and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.