In re A.W. CA1/1

Filed 6/29/15 In re A.W. CA1/1 Received for posting 7/2/15 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MENDOCINO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, CHILDREN AND FAMILY SYSTEM OF CARE, A143221

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Mendocino County v. Super. Ct. Nos. SCUK-JVSQ-1415763, SCUK-JVSQ-1415764, SCUK-JVSQ- CLARENCE W., 1417027) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Clarence W. (father) and Nicole S. (mother) have long been involved in juvenile dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 Most recently, the juvenile court denied father reunification services because of his history of substance abuse and because reunification services for him had previously been terminated. In this appeal, father does not challenge that decision but instead challenges the court’s decision to deny him visitation with his children while he is in prison. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s disposition order and is not a party to this appeal.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency, Children and Family System of Care (Agency) has been involved with this family since at least August 2009, when it filed a dependency petition relating to mother’s and father’s two older children and an older child of mother who is unrelated to father (and who is not the subject of this appeal). The juvenile court sustained allegations that the children were at substantial risk of harm due to domestic violence between father and mother, which included incidents in which father was arrested and charged with abuse; that father and mother both violated a stay-away restraining order imposed as a condition of placing the children with mother after the dependency petition was first filed; and that father had a history of substance abuse, evidenced by several alcohol-related arrests, hindering his ability to protect and parent his children. The children were placed with mother, and services were ordered for father. Shortly thereafter, the minors were detained when the Agency filed a supplemental petition alleging that father was living with mother in violation of the court’s stay-away order. The court sustained the supplemental allegations, but it ordered the minors be returned to mother’s custody. It also ordered father to receive family-reunification services and be permitted to have weekly, supervised visits with his children lasting at least one hour. Father made progress on his case plan, and in September 2010 the juvenile court ordered that he regain physical custody of his children, who remained dependents of the court. But, less than a month later, the Agency filed a supplemental petition alleging father had tested positive for alcohol, failed to show up for a scheduled drug test, and failed to attend a group meeting as part of his substance-abuse program. Father first voluntarily left the family home under an agreement with the Agency. At a jurisdiction hearing in November 2010, the juvenile court found the supplemental allegations true, but it permitted father to return to the family home.