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 Sa.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. S.G

April 19, 2011

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



(Super. Ct. Nos. JD227367, JD227368)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson, J.

In re Sa. G.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

S.G., father of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights and denying his petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395.)*fn1 Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying his petitions for modification without a hearing and erred in failing to find he had established the benefit exception to the preference for adoption. We affirm.

FACTS

In April 2008, the minors, four-year-old Sa.G. and six-year-old Sh.G., were removed from the home of the maternal great-grandmother, at her request, due to her inability to provide for the minors. The minors were left in her care by appellant. Appellant had been arrested in March 2008 and remained in custody at the time of the removal.

In July 2008, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed amended petitions alleging the mother had ongoing substance abuse problems and appellant was still in custody. The juvenile court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services for both parents.

The six-month review report documented appellant was released from custody in December 2008 and was referred to services. Both minors were reported to be in therapy and beginning to stabilize in foster placement although Sh.G. had problems with aggression. The court ordered further services.

The permanency report documented appellant had visited the minors consistently following his release from prison and demonstrated appropriate parenting. Appellant had not complied with any part of his service plan except drug testing as a condition of his parole and had not provided proof of any services he completed in custody. He tested positive for methamphetamine in May 2009. Prior to the contested permanency hearing, appellant did provide proof of his in-custody services. The court adopted the Department's recommendation for further services.

The permanency review report discussed the minors' multiple placements, which had characterized the case. The multiple placements were due, in part, to problems with the foster homes, i.e., lack of room and no longer providing foster care, and to Sh.G.'s ongoing behavioral problems which resulted in a seven-day notice to remove her. At the time of the report in October 2009, the minors were placed separately. Both minors were still in therapy. Appellant continued to visit weekly and was allowed to stay at the hospital overnight when Sh.G. was admitted to deal with a medical malady. Visits remained appropriate. Appellant had not participated in services, except testing as a condition of his parole and the tests were negative. Appellant was arrested on a parole violation in November 2009, just prior to the permanency review hearing. The court terminated his reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing.

The assessment for the selection and implementation hearing documented appellant was released from custody in February 2010 and went to an inpatient drug treatment program, but had not yet requested visits. The minors had again been moved to new placements and were currently separated. The minors were not in adoptive placements. The Department requested a continuance of the hearing to evaluate the maternal great-grandmother for placement.

An addendum filed in June 2010 documented the Department denied placement with the maternal great-grandmother. The addendum documented the minors were now placed together and the current caretakers, who had cared for Sh.G. for ...


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.