Moses R. v. Super. Ct. CA6

Filed 9/3/15 Moses R. v. Super. Ct. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MOSES R., No. H042404 (Santa Clara County Petitioner, Super. Ct. Nos. 114 JD22691, 114 JD22692 & 114 JD22693) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Respondent,

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Moses R. (the father) seeks writ relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating his reunification services, scheduling a Welfare and Institutions Code section 1 366.26 hearing, and reducing his visitation with his three children to once a month. He contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating services because there was not substantial evidence that he had not progressed on his case plan, and the court failed to consider the fact that his incarceration created barriers to his participation in services. The

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

father claims that the juvenile court erred in reducing his visitation because the court did not make a detriment finding. We reject his contentions and deny his petition.

I. Background Sylvia E. (the mother) and the father have three children together. In July 2014, the mother gave birth to their youngest child, J.R. Both J.R. and the mother tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of J.R.’s birth. The mother admitted that she had been using methamphetamine for seven years. The father had recently been released from jail when J.R. was born. He admitted that he was a frequent user of methamphetamine and an alcoholic. The mother and the father had used methamphetamine together during her pregnancy with J.R. The father’s brother reported that the father was prone to violence when he was under the influence. The father had been serving a previous jail sentence when their eldest daughter, I.R., was born in September 2013. Their son, M.R., had been born in June 2012. The mother had always been the primary caretaker for the children, and the father had provided no support for them. The family had been living with the father’s father, who was a heroin addict and used drugs frequently. Many of the father’s family members had mental health issues, and the father “would often see and hear things that were not there . . . .” The father’s criminal history included convictions for driving under the influence, theft, battery, and assault with a deadly weapon. He was on probation and required to attend domestic violence classes, drug test, attend AA, and engage in drug rehabilitation. He had not been compliant with the terms of his probation, and he was incarcerated again shortly after J.R.’s birth. The children were detained in July 2014, and the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (the Department) filed petitions under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) as to all three children. In August 2014, the mother and the father submitted the matter on the petitions and the social worker’s report, and the court