In re J v. CA2/6

Filed 3/15/16 In re J.V. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re J.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B265746 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. JV46501) (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JULIO V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Julio V. (father) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to his minor children J.V. and L.V. with a permanent plan of adoption (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26). Father claims the court erred in excluding evidence regarding the suitability of the prospective adoptive father and in finding that the beneficial parental-child relationship exception did not apply. (Id. at subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

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

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition Father is the presumed father of J.V., born in March 2012, and L.V., born in March 2013. The San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a section 300 petition as to them after L.V. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The petition also alleged the parents abused drugs and engaged in physical violence in the minors' presence.2 The children were detained and the parents agreed to enroll in counseling and complete drug and alcohol assessments. On May 9, 2013, the minors were returned to mother on the condition they stay at a local homeless shelter. Three weeks later, DSS filed a section 387 supplemental petition reporting that father had brought the children in and requested that DSS take custody of them. The court ordered the minors detained under the supplemental petition and placed them in foster care. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court took jurisdiction over the minors and granted the parents six months of family reunification services. Both parents were in custody and were awarded jail visits. Review Hearings, Termination of Services, and Writ Review At the three-month review hearing, DSS reported that father had been granted probation and was participating in drug and alcohol services (DAS) and family treatment court (FTC). Mother was in jail and wanted the minors to be placed with father or the maternal uncle (the prospective adoptive father). At the six-month review hearing, the court granted an additional six months of services. At the 12-month review hearing, services were again extended for six months. Two months later, DSS reported that father had "struck out" of FTC and terminated from DAS. In September 2014, father filed a modification petition seeking dismissal of the dependency action and the return of the minors to his custody. In its 18-month review report, DSS recommended that services be continued for an additional 90 days