In re R.H. CA2/6

Filed 8/24/16 In re R.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.H., et al., Persons Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B269859 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J069838, J069839) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.H. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s orders summarily denying his modification petition and terminating his parental rights to his minor daughters, R.H. and N.H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 366.26.)1 Father contends he made a prima facie showing in his section 388 petition that entitled him to an evidentiary hearing. He also claims the court erred in finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. We affirm.

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

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 28, 2014, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a dependency petition as to R.H., born in September 2012, and N.H., born in October 2013. The petition alleged that the children had been removed from their home after their parents were arrested for domestic violence and child endangerment.2 The parents also have histories of substance abuse that interfered with their ability to care for the children. R.H. and N.H. were placed together in a foster home. In its jurisdiction and disposition report, HSA recommended that the children be declared dependents and that reunification services be offered to both parents. HSA reported that the parents had three weekly one-hour supervised visits with the children and that the visits had gone well. Father’s first drug test was positive for marijuana and methamphetamine, but a second test was negative. At the conclusion of the uncontested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court sustained the petition and granted the parents six months of reunification services. The parents were ordered to comply with their case plans, submit to random drug testing, attend Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings, and refrain from possessing alcohol or illegal drugs. A six-month review hearing was set for August 11, 2014. In April 2014, the court placed N.H. and R.H. in a relative placement (a paternal aunt and uncle) in accordance with section 361.3. In its six-month report, HSA recommended that reunification services be terminated as to father. As to mother, HSA recommended that services be continued and that a 90-day interim review hearing be set to assess her progress. HSA’s recommendation considering father was based on his failure to comply with virtually every element of his case plan. During the review period, he was directed to submit to random drug testing on 12 separate occasions. He only tested twice, and one of those tests was positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Moreover, he had minimally participated in the available substance abuse services and attended only 14 AA/NA