In re Martin R. CA3

Filed 1/27/14 In re Martin R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re MARTIN R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, C074263

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD231847, JD232582) v.

S.R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Mother and father appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to two-year-old Martin and one-year-old Nathaniel. They contend the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying father’s request to continue the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.1 We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. We affirm the order.

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

1

BACKGROUND In September 2011, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of then four-month-old Martin. The petition alleged: (1) the parents had a history of domestic violence in front of the minor; (2) the parents had failed to benefit from services; (3) mother had failed to protect the child; and (4) father had a substance abuse problem. The petition also alleged abuse of siblings.2 In October 2011, mother was granted a restraining order. Following a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in February 2012, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition true, granted reunification services to mother, but denied them to father. By July 2012, mother had made some progress in her reunification plan, including completing parenting classes, domestic violence counseling, and individual counseling. Father had been released from jail following his domestic violence conviction in late March 2012 and was living with mother. Mother had unsupervised visits but when the Department learned about the continuing contact with father, it began supervising the visits again. The Department filed a section 300 petition in August 2012 alleging Nathaniel, then about four months old, was a dependent child based on the domestic violence between the parents, their continued contact, and the abuse of siblings. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations true, and in November 2012 declared him a dependent. Father was denied reunification services for Martin and Nathaniel. Mother’s reunification services as to Martin were terminated. Mother was denied reunification services as to Nathaniel. A section 366.26 hearing for both children was set for March 18, 2013.