In re C.P. CA2/2

Filed 2/27/15 In re C.P. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re C.P., JR., a Person Coming Under the B258877 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK44845)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.P., SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________________________

C.P. (Father) challenges a juvenile court order relating to his son, C.P., Jr., on the grounds that the court should have granted a continuance and prematurely terminated parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 352, 366.26.)1 Good cause for a continuance was not shown. The court properly terminated parental rights because C.P. is going to be adopted and no exception applies. We affirm. FACTS C.P. was detained at birth in June 2013, when he and his mother Charmica C. (Mother) tested positive for cannabinoids. Mother admitted using marijuana throughout her pregnancy, as recently as two days before C.P. was born, and for the past 13 years. Mother has children ages five, six and 10 who were the subject of referrals for abuse, neglect, caretaker absence/incapacity, and domestic violence. They live with the maternal grandparents and Mother has not visited them for years.2 C.P. was taken into protective custody by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Paternal grandmother Eva L. (PGM), who lives in Nevada, expressed willingness to care for C.P. and was given information about how to participate in the dependency process. Father could not take custody because he was incarcerated. DCFS filed a petition alleging that C.P. was born suffering a detrimental condition—a positive toxicology test for marijuana—due to Mother’s unreasonable acts. Mother has a history of drug use and currently abuses marijuana, rendering her incapable of providing regular child care and placing C.P. at risk of harm. On June 18, 2013, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining C.P.; a substantial danger required removal from parental custody. Father was not present at C.P.’s birth, did not sign the birth certificate, was not married to Mother, and did not contribute financially toward the child’s support; however, a paternity test showed a 99.99 percent probability that he is C.P.’s father.