In re J.L. CA1/1

Filed 7/15/16 In re J.L. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL A147211 SERVICES AGENCY, (Alameda County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. OJ13021089, v. OJ13021090) J.L., Defendant and Appellant.

The twin daughters of appellant J.L. (Father) were taken from the custody of their mother (Mother) in June 2013. Although Mother suffered from substance abuse and mental illness, Father had left the children in Mother’s care a year earlier when he was charged with abusing Mother. After the dependency proceeding was commenced, Father delayed becoming involved for several months. In part as a result of these delays, he was denied reunification services. Later, at a hearing conducted pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,1 the juvenile court found that return of the children to Father would be detrimental to their emotional well-being and terminated Father’s parental rights. We affirm.

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

I. BACKGROUND In June 2013, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) filed dependency petitions in connection with E.L. and J.L. (twins), the two-year-old twin daughters of Father and Mother. The petitions alleged Mother was no longer willing and able to care for the twins as a result of financial difficulties, due in part to her substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (g).) Mother was also alleged to suffer from poorly treated bipolar disorder. As detailed in our prior opinion in this matter, In re J.L. (Nov. 10, 2015, A144486) [nonpub. opn.] (J.L. I)), the twins had lived in Father’s home for the first 18 months of their lives. Mother left with them in May 2012, after Father was arrested on a charge of domestic violence against her, and they had no further contact with him until after commencement of these proceedings. Father learned of the proceedings in July 2013, but he did not seek visitation with the twins until December.2 Father’s status was elevated to presumed father in March 2014, just one week before the juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. Although Father’s attorney made an unsuccessful oral motion for reunification services at that time, it was not until late June 2014 that a proper written section 388 petition for modification granting Father reunification services was filed. By that time, Father had completed only four visits with the twins. In the meantime, the twins had developed a strong relationship with their foster parent, Mother’s sister, with whom they had been placed in September 2013. Father continued to have twice-monthly visits thereafter, but he had little contact with the twins outside of the visits. In January 2015, the trial court denied Father’s section 388 petition, concluding the twins’ interests would be better served by a permanent placement with their aunt, who was willing to adopt them, than the possibility of reunification with Father. We affirmed that decision. The section 366.26 hearing, scheduled to begin the month following denial of the section 388 petition, did not conclude until November 2015. In reports filed in