In re G.M. CA1/5

Filed 2/6/15 In re G.M. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 G.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, A142664

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. J41633, v. J41634)

ARCHIE M.,

Defendant and Appellant. ________________________________________/

Presumed father Archie M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights as to his daughters following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing).1 He contends the termination order must be reversed because “he was denied his right to be present in person” at the .26 hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We recite only those facts relevant to the issues raised by father on appeal.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. A.M. (mother) is not a party to this appeal and is mentioned only where necessary. 1

Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition Mother and father have two children: G.M., born in 2009, and Z.M., born in 2012 (collectively, children). While pregnant with Z.M., mother lived in a “‘drug house’” with G.M. Z.M. tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana at birth. A few days later, the Solano County Health and Human Services Department (Department) filed a petition alleging the children came within section 300, subdivision (b) because mother and father had “an untreated substance abuse problem and drug related criminal behavior” interfering with their ability “to provide safe and adequate care for” the children. The section 300 petition also alleged father used methamphetamine and allowed G.M. “to live in hazardous living conditions” where methamphetamine and marijuana were used “in her presence.” When the Department filed the petition, father was incarcerated for possession of a methamphetamine pipe and was struggling to “maintain[ ] sobriety as well as safe and stable housing.” He had been arrested numerous times and had a lengthy criminal history. Father was released from jail in early September 2012. The court detained the children and placed them with two different parental relatives.2 Father did not appear at the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing and the court continued the case as to him. When father did not appear at the continued hearing, his attorney “object[ed] and submit[ted]” on jurisdiction and disposition. The court adjudged the children dependents of the court (§ 300, subd. (b)) and determined by clear and convincing evidence returning them to parental care would cause substantial danger to their physical health. The court ordered reunification services, random drug tests, and supervised visits for both parents. Six-Month Review Hearing The Department recommended terminating reunification services for both parents and setting a .26 hearing. According to the Department, father was “homeless . . . [and]