In re Emily Z. CA2/6

Filed 7/31/13 In re Emily Z. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re EMILY Z. et al., Persons Coming 2d Juv. No. B246468 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. JV50456) (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARTIN Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Martin Z., father of three-year-old Vicente and eight-year-old Emily, appeals from the juvenile court's order denying his petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388)1 and the termination of his parental rights (§ 366.26). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 3, 2011, the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that father and mother failed to protect and support one-year-old Vicente and five-year-old Emily. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300,

1 All statutory references are to the Welare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. The juvenile court also denied mother's section 388 petition and terminated her parental rights. She is not a party to this appeal.

subds. (b) & (g).) The petition alleged that mother was driving while under the influence of methamphetamine on November 1, 2011, with Vicente, who was riding unrestrained, in a car seat. Mother was six months' pregnant. A deputy sheriff contacted DSS and arrested mother for being under the influence of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and child endangerment likely to produce great bodily harm or death (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). DSS took Vicente and Emily into protective custody. Mother's criminal record included a February 2011 spousal battery conviction. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e).) The November 4, 2011, detention report stated that mother and the children sometimes lived with father, in violation of a court order prohibiting mother from having contact with father. Father knew mother had a recent history of substance abuse, but could not tell when she was using drugs. On November 4, the juvenile court authorized the children's continued detention, and suitable placement at the discretion of DSS, with supervised visits for mother and father. The November 30, 2011, jurisdictional and dispositional report stated that father and other family members said they could not prevent mother from taking the children. Emily told the DSS social worker her parents got into physical fights. During the December 21, 2011, jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, DSS reported the children would be placed in the home of a relative on December 23. Both parents submitted to the DSS recommendation that the children remain in foster care with reunification services. The court authorized supervised visits for each parent, once or twice weekly, for one to four hours, subject to the discretion of DSS to increase visitation if appropriate. Among other things, father's case required that he stay "free from illegal drugs"; show he could "live free from drug dependency"; and avoid "arrests and convictions." The court scheduled the three-month and six-month review hearings for March 21, 2012, and June 20, 2012. Further, the court provided written notice to the parents that because the children were taken into protective custody when Vicente was less than three years old, the parents might (1) "only have . . . six months to reunify with" the children; (2) the parents' "[f]ailure to participate regularly and make substantive