In re F.C. CA1/1

Filed 7/31/13 In re F.C. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re F.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137378 v. (Contra Costa County P.C., Super. Ct. No. J11-01597) Defendant and Appellant.

In December 2012, the juvenile court entered an order in which it denied a petition filed by P.C. (Father) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 terminated the parental rights of Father and T.B. (Mother), and selected a permanent plan of adoption for the minor F.C. (born November 2011). Father challenges the order, arguing the court erred in denying his section 388 petition and in terminating his parental rights. We perceive no error and affirm the order. BACKGROUND The minor was born testing positive for opiates and marijuana, requiring treatment for opiate withdrawal. Shortly afterward, on November 29, 2011, the Contra Costa

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

County Bureau of Children and Family Services (Bureau) initiated this proceeding under section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court ordered formal detention the next day. At the jurisdictional hearing a week later, the court sustained the following amended allegations under section 300, subdivision (b): Mother had a serious substance abuse problem and unaddressed mental health issues, each impairing her ability to care properly for the minor. At the dispositional hearing, held January 6, 2012, the juvenile court adjudged the minor a dependent, ordered his removal pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1), and ordered reunification services for both parents. Father’s case plan called for him to complete parenting education, submit to testing for alcohol and drugs, engage in substance abuse treatment, complete a psychological assessment, undergo individual counseling, complete a psychotropic medication evaluation, and engage in medication monitoring. While the sustained jurisdictional allegations pertained only to Mother, Father agreed to comply with this case plan.2 In the report submitted at the six-month status review hearing, completed June 6, 2012, the assigned social worker expressed “disappoint[ment]” regarding both parents’ lack of progress with their case plans. As to Father, the social worker reported he had not yet followed through with referrals for individual counseling and substance abuse treatment, had not yet begun a parenting class, had missed a number of alcohol/drug tests, and had not begun to test negative for marijuana until April. Father had only recently arranged for a psychological assessment, scheduled to occur near the end of June. At the conclusion of the six-month hearing on June 18, the juvenile court concluded, in effect, that both parents had failed to make substantial progress in their court-ordered plans, and there was not a substantial probability that the minor could be