In re D.F. CA3

Filed 12/9/14 In re D.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re D.F. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C076345 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. J06151) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.F. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Leticia F., mother, and Daniel F., father, appeal from orders of the juvenile court at the 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (f); 395 [undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Mother contends the court should not have terminated reunification services because she was making good progress in services and could have

1

reunified. Father raises no issues and simply joins the arguments in mother’s brief. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

FACTS

In November 2012, the minors D.F., age 11; Da.F., age 9; J.F., age 4 and A.F., age 2, were detained due to physical and emotional abuse of the older children by father and to mother’s failure to protect the minors from ongoing domestic violence. The court sustained the amended petition and ordered the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) to provide services for both parents. By the 12-month review report in December 2013, mother was continuing in counseling and participating in supervised visits. Mother maintained a relationship with father despite the violence and abuse she and the minors had suffered. After 30 sessions of therapy mother was unable to objectively assess the relationship or show she could protect the minors. Father was previously discharged from drug court and at that time said he had no intention of returning. Father blamed the Agency for the minors’ removal, denied he had any issues, lacked insight into how his behavior impacted the family and refused services. Father’s visits generally went well unless he became angry with something such as a slight delay in starting visits. At one visit, father’s angry outburst escalated until the visit supervisor had to explain that the visit could be terminated if he did not calm down. The report recommended termination of services for both parents. The review hearing commenced in April 2014. Father’s counsel had informed the court at a prior hearing that father had had a change of heart and was getting involved in drug counseling. At the review hearing, father presented testimony that he was actively involved in an outpatient program which addressed recovery, relapse prevention, stress management and anger management. The program provided drug testing and father’s recent tests were clean. Father was recently reinstated to drug court. He was considered