In re N.C. CA1/5

Filed 10/11/13 In re N.C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

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

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136480 v. (Sonoma County John C., Super. Ct. No. 3682DEP) Defendant and Appellant.

John C. appeals from the juvenile court‟s order terminating visitation with his daughter pending a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 He contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence, because the fact that visits were detrimental to the child when she visited him in jail does not mean that visits would be detrimental to her after his release. We will affirm the order. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY N.C. is a female minor born in 2010. Her mother is N.M. Appellant John C. was identified in the dependency petition as N.C.‟s presumed father. For clarity, we refer to them respectively as the child, the mother, and appellant.

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

1

The child entered the dependency system when she was approximately 11 months old in July 2011, on allegations that appellant physically assaulted the mother and had a substance abuse problem, placing the child at a substantial risk of harm. In August 2011, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, declared the child a dependent of the court, removed her from the parents‟ physical custody, ordered reunification services for both parents, and directed the parents to comply with case plans. Appellant was required, among other things, to abstain from drugs and alcohol, submit to random drug testing, refrain from domestic violence, and “[v]isit [the child] consistently and on-time as arranged by the [social] worker.” A. Appellant’s Incarceration and Visitation Before the end of August 2011, appellant tested positive for methamphetamine. The following month, he was arrested for domestic violence against the mother, who told police that he had threatened to kill both her and the child. Appellant was returned to jail. At a progress report hearing in November 2011, the court warned appellant that his parental rights would be terminated if he continued with his lifestyle. Nonetheless, after he was released from jail that month, appellant was arrested and incarcerated for threatening the mother again. In a six month status report filed January 27, 2012, respondent Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) advised that appellant would remain incarcerated until June 13, 2012. The Department acknowledged that appellant had visitation with the child on alternating weeks. The visits were positive, but the child struggled after the visits, in that she was anxious and it was hard for her to settle down. The Department recommended that services not be continued for either parent. On April 2, 2012, the Department filed a “Visitation Memo” with the court, expressing concern about the child‟s emotional well-being in regard to her visits with appellant. Beginning in January 2012, while visits were held at the Main Adult Detention Facility, the child cried and seemed stressed after leaving her caregiver (foster parent). More specifically, she “appeared distressed when entering the facility and visiting with her father[,] causing the last visit at that facility to be ended early.” Visits were moved to