In re L.R. CA2/8

Filed 8/5/14 In re L.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re L.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the B253123 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK89121)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Dismissed.

David A. Hamilton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Father L.R. and appellant mother G.S. were arrested in July 2011 when police executed a search warrant at their home in connection with father’s selling of methamphetamine. Appellant mother was released the day after her arrest. Father, on the other hand, apparently remained in custody from his arrest until his release from prison in August 2013 and later deportation from the United States as an undocumented alien. Following mother and father’s arrest, respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed on July 28, 2011, a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 alleging that the couple’s then 17-month-old son L.R. and 6-month-old daughter R.R. were at risk of harm from father’s possession in the family home of one-half pound of methamphetamine and two loaded handguns. Both children were detained. On September 20, 2011, the dependency court sustained the petition. The court ordered mother and father to participate in parenting classes and drug awareness programs. The court also ordered monitored visitation for both parents with the minors, with discretion to liberalize. At the six-month review hearing in April 2012, the court found father’s progress in correcting the problems that led to the children’s removal from the family home had been “minimal.” Mother, on the other hand, had maintained regular contact and visitation with the children and was making progress in resolving the problems that led to the children’s removal. The court found there was a substantial probability of returning the children to mother’s custody. On July 25, 2012, police arrested mother for armed robbery. In August 2012, mother was sentenced on the robbery charge to two years in state prison, plus two additional years to be served consecutively for violating probation. The next month in September 2012, the dependency court granted de facto parental status to the children’s foster parents, who had cared for both children for most of the time since their detention. The dependency court also granted the foster parents the right to make educational decisions for each child, both of whom had been identified as having disabilities. At the