(Super. Ct. No. JD228454)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 two separate cases, A. Q. (father), who is serving a state prison term of life without possibility of parole, first appeals from an in-home review hearing order that allowed him visitation with minor J. Q. only through telephone and letter contact monitored by a third party (case No. C066282) and then from a subsequent exit order that maintained these limits on visitation (case No. C066557). On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals. We now affirm in the first appeal and dismiss the second appeal as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2008, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the department) filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code*fn1 section 300 as to minors J. F. (a 10-year-old male), J. Q. (a 6-year-old male), M. M. (a 4-year-old female), and W. M. (M. M.'s fraternal twin brother). The petitions alleged that the mother (M. F.) had requested that the minors be removed from her custody because she was overwhelmed caring for them, could not obtain suitable housing, and suffered from mental health problems.
According to the detention report, J. Q. suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and was in special education. The minors had three different alleged fathers.*fn2
On October 6, 2008, the juvenile court was informed that all the alleged fathers were incarcerated; appellant/father was housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. The court ordered the minors detained.
The department's jurisdiction/disposition report stated that J. Q. said he wanted to live with mother. Mother admitted regular methamphetamine use until three years ago; she also had an alcohol problem she did not admit to. She was referred for supportive services and outpatient substance abuse treatment in a dual diagnosis group.
Father's criminal record through 2003 included felony convictions for vehicle theft, assault with a firearm on a person, making terrorist threats, attempting to prevent or dissuade a witness from testifying, and stalking; after the last three convictions, he was sentenced to a state prison term of 78 years to life. Further felonies in custody, including attempted murder of a prison official, increased his sentence to 181 years to life.
An addendum report recommended that the juvenile court deny reunification services and make a no-contact order as to father because: (1) he was serving an life-without-possibility-of-parole sentence; and (2) J. Q. had not seen him in four years and had no significant attachment to him.
A second addendum report recommended that the juvenile court return J. Q. to mother under dependent supervision and order visitation for father by telephone and letter contact through the social worker. Any other visitation should be left to the department's discretion, considering J. Q.'s wishes.
Following a contested dispositional hearing which ended on April 16, 2009, the juvenile court made the recommended orders. According to the minute order, the court ordered as to father's visitation: "The father shall have phone and letter contact as arranged by the social worker. Visits with the father may be arranged by the social worker. The child's wishes shall be taken into consideration; the child shall not be made to visit against his will."
As of August 6, 2009, when the department filed a prepermanency review/in-home review report, all four minors were living with mother. The report recommended termination of dependency. It stated as to J. Q.: "The child has no visits with the father, as the father is ...