In re J.R. CA2/8

Filed 7/9/14 In re J.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the B251443 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK82796) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Amy M. Pellman, Judge. Affirmed.

Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Amir Pichvai for Respondent.

__________________________

Father C.R. appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.1 We affirm because the court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing on the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In June 2010, respondent Department of Family and Children Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300 against appellant father C.R. and mother – who is not a party to this appeal – regarding their minor children, J.R. born in 2003, and then three- month old M.R. born in 2010. The petition alleged father and mother had failed to protect and provide regular care to the children which placed the children at risk of harm. In particular, father had accidentally scratched J.R.’s face in administering inappropriate discipline; father had a history of alcohol abuse, which periodically rendered him unable to provide regular care and supervision; father had a history of convictions for possession of controlled substances which created a detrimental home environment; mother had untreated “mental health issues” which limited her ability to provide for the children’s regular care and supervision; and, father and mother had a history of domestic violence. Based on the petition’s allegations, the court detained the children and placed them in foster care. In October 2010, father submitted on the petition and the court sustained the petition’s allegations. The court ordered family reunification services and directed father to participate in parenting, alcohol, drug, and domestic violence counseling, and to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. The court further ordered monitored visitation for father of at least three times a week, and granted DCFS discretion to increase the number and length of visits. In succeeding months, DCFS received favorable reports from father’s counselors on his program compliance and progress. In January 2011, the court increased father’s visitation.