 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael O. v. Superior Court of San Diego2/26/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Michael O. (the father) seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating his reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26 and California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B. He contends the court erred in not finding there was a substantial probability of returning his daughter, Faith, to his care by the 18-month date. He argues he has maintained contact with Faith, has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to her removal from his home and has demonstrated his capacity and ability to complete the objectives of his treatment plan and provide for her safety, protection and well-being. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2001, the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging the parents of then three-month-old Faith were unable to provide regular care for her. The petition alleged that between April 26, 2001 and October 2, 2001, Faith's mother, Rebecca O., (the mother), had a mental illness, including major depression evidenced by threats of suicide and recent hospitalization after which she did not seek outside therapy, and she sleeps most of the day. The petition also alleged the father used methamphetamine and alcohol to excess from June 27, 1998 through October 2, 2001, evidenced by his own admission, multiple arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a psychological evaluation indicating his methamphetamine dependency, and failure to comply with a reunification plan for Faith's sibling, Jonathan, who was removed from his care in January 2001.
On October 3, 2001, the court detained Faith at the Polinsky Center or in foster care and ordered supervised but separate visits for the parents.
In the jurisdictional/dispositional report the social worker expressed concern the father was using illegal drugs, becoming increasingly depressed and not following through with referrals for treatment. He had attended only four domestic violence classes although required to complete a 52-week program. The social worker recommended he participate in a domestic violence program, parenting classes and marital counseling and have weekly drug tests. She also recommended supervised contact with Faith separate from the mother.
At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on October 26, 2001, the parents submitted to the allegations of the petition and the court made a true finding on both counts. The court declared Faith a dependent, placed her in foster care and ordered the parents to comply with the plan the social worker had recommended.
At a hearing on November 16, 2001, the social worker submitted a special report, stating the father had been first ordered to the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) program for Jonathan's case on March 14, 2001, but the court had released him from participation in SARMS on April 27 on condition he submit to drug testing and attend Calvary Ranch, an alternative rehabilitation program that lasts from 14 to 90 days. At the time of the report, the father had attended 11 days at Calvary Ranch. The court ordered him to complete the Calvary Ranch program within 30 days, attend three meetings each week and submit to random drug testing.
At a hearing on December 14, 2001, the social worker reported t
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|