Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re A.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. J.R

January 13, 2011

IN RE A.R. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
J.R., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



Super. Ct. Nos. JD229337, JD229338

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull,j.

In re A.R. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

J.R. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights and directing adoption as to minors G.R. and A.R. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Father contends the court applied the wrong standard in ruling that he had failed to establish the sibling relationship exception to adoption. Finding any error harmless, we affirm the trial court's order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In view of father's sole contention, we are not required to recite the history of the case in depth.

These proceedings began in January 2008, when G.R. (a female aged seven), A.R. (a female aged six), N.R. (a male aged four), and J.R. (a male aged two) were detained in Yolo County. It was alleged that the minors' mother, with whom they lived, kept a filthy home, failed to clean or feed them, and allowed them to wander. Father, who was separated from mother, did not live there.

Although mother regained custody of the minors at the jurisdiction hearing in March 2008, section 387 petitions were filed thereafter, and the juvenile court placed the minors with the maternal great-grandmother in May 2008. At the disposition hearing in August 2008, the parents were granted reunification services.

The six-month review report noted that mother was not complying with her case plan and father needed substance abuse treatment.

In February 2009, the minors were removed from the great-grandmother's custody because she could no longer care for them; the girls were detained in one foster home, the boys in another. Section 387 petitions requesting an order for out-of-home placement were filed. After the Yolo County juvenile court sustained the petitions, the matter was transferred in April 2009 to Sacramento County, where both parents then lived.

The report prepared for the transfer-in dispositional hearing by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) recommended termination of the mother's services. It stated that the minors were adjusting well to their placements, which were two or three miles apart, but the boys had developmental problems (speech delay and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)).

On July 22, 2009, the juvenile court terminated mother's services, but found father had not received reasonable services.

The Department's status report filed November 4, 2009, stated that father was participating "minimally" in services. The minors visited each other every other week and enjoyed their interactions. N.R., the older boy, still had emotional problems, including ADHD, possible posttraumatic stress disorder, and possible ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.