In re William D. CA1/4

Filed 6/3/13 In re William D. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re WILLIAM D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136667 v. (Solano County JOSEPH D. & MARY F., Super. Ct. Nos. J40976, J40977) Defendants and Appellants.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of appellants Joseph D. and Mary F. to their minor children, William and James D. Both parents appeal,1 challenging the juvenile court’s determination and alleging that Joseph’s bond with the minors outweighed the benefits of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm the juvenile court orders.

1 Mary filed a notice of appeal after the juvenile court rendered its decision, but before it issued its formal order terminating her parental rights. Her notice of appeal was premature, but we deem it to have been filed immediately after the order issued. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d).) Joseph filed his notice of appeal three days after the order terminating his parental rights. Thus, both appeals are timely. 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

I. FACTS3 In September 2008, appellants Joseph D. and Mary F. became the parents of William D. A year later sibling James D. was born. In July 2010, the parents left the minors at a church nursery and disappeared for two hours. James was suffering from an infection on his leg that required immediate hospitalization, which neither parent had obtained. When they returned to the nursery, Joseph and Mary were arrested and incarcerated for child endangerment. The minors were placed in foster care. Respondent Solano County Health and Social Services (department) filed a juvenile dependency petition in July 2011, alleging failure to protect and failure to provide for support. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) The department offered evidence of general neglect. The parents were homeless and living in their vehicle. Mary appeared to have substance abuse or mental health issues. The minors were ordered to remain detained. Visitation and reunification services were ordered for the parents. In September 2011, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of an amended juvenile dependency petition on failure to protect, and sibling abuse grounds. (§ 300, subds. (b), (j).) In October 2011, the juvenile court approved the removal of the minors from the parents and set a March 20124 date for a six-month review hearing.5 In advance of the scheduled review hearing in March, the department recommended that the juvenile court maintain the minors’ out-of-home placement, terminate reunification services, and set a date for a permanency planning hearing. (§ 366.26.) It reported that the boys were bonded to their foster parents and appeared comfortable in that home. The parents’ compliance with the requirements of their case