In re Christopher M. CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 11, 2013 No. F066122Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court properly terminated reunification services because the father failed to make significant progress in resolving the core problems of drug use and lack of suitable housing, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services at the 12-month review hearing.
Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the father failed to make significant progress in his reunification plan.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In this case, substantial evidence supports a finding Charles did not make significant progress in resolving the problems that required Christopher’s removal.”

““Substantial compliance,” however, is not the standard and compliance with one component does not, in this case, amount to “significant progress” as we explain.”

Filed 6/11/13 In re Christopher M. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re CHRISTOPHER M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY F066122 COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 516144) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION CHARLES E., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Thomas S. Szakall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Robin L. Gozzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Poochigian, J.

Appellant Charles E. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s order issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))1 terminating his reunification services as to his three-year-old son, Christopher. Charles contends he substantially complied with his court-ordered services. Therefore, he further contends, the juvenile court erred in terminating rather than extending the time for him to complete them. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s termination order and affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In July 2011, then 15-month-old Christopher was removed from the custody of his mother Melody by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) because of Melody’s drug use. Melody identified Charles, who was living in Calaveras County, as Christopher’s biological father. Charles said he did not have a suitable home for Christopher at that time. Christopher was placed in foster care. In October 2011, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction, ordered Christopher removed from Charles and Melody’s custody and ordered family reunification services. Charles’s reunification plan required him to complete a parenting program and a drug and alcohol assessment and submit to random drug testing. The juvenile court also ordered weekly two-hour visitation and set a six-month review hearing in April 2012. Over the next six months, Charles completed eight of ten parenting classes and was participating in one-on-one parenting sessions. However, he tested positive for marijuana twice and had yet to enter a drug treatment facility despite receiving a referral for outpatient drug treatment. Charles acknowledged that he could not smoke marijuana

In re Christopher M. CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief