(Super. Ct. No. JD228657)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
J.P., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Father contends there was insufficient evidence supporting the court's finding that he was provided reasonable reunification services including visitation. Father asserts he may raise this issue on appeal because he was not given notice of his right to writ review of the hearing setting the selection and implementation hearing. We affirm.
In November 2008, the five-month-old minor and his half sibling were removed from parental custody due to the mother's neglect and substance abuse. Father was in federal prison in Los Angeles and not due for release until June 2009. The court ordered father to participate in parenting classes and substance abuse services if offered at his facility. While the federal facility did not offer parenting classes, father was able to participate in alcohol and drug education classes.
When father was released from custody, he filed a Notification of Mailing Address form in May 2009, designating the paternal grandmother's address in Sacramento as his mailing address. At a hearing on June 1, 2009, the court ordered the clerk to obtain father's current contact information and thereafter notices and copies of court orders were mailed to father at the paternal grandfather's address in Citrus Heights where he resided.*fn1
The report for the six-month review hearing recommended further services for father, stating he had completed a parenting class, a substance abuse class and a relapse prevention program. Father's case plan included general counseling and avoiding criminal behavior and incarceration. The court adopted the recommended case plan for additional services.
However, by the 12-month review report in December 2009, father had been arrested and was in jail for new charges and for violations of both his federal and state paroles. Father had not participated in all elements of his case plan because he did not feel the need to duplicate the similar services required by his parole. However, the federal parole officer could not share information on father's counseling services or drug testing without a court order. Father admitted he had a presumptive positive test for methamphetamine in November 2009. The report recommended termination of father's services.
Father was not present at the hearing on January 25, 2010, and the matter was submitted on the reports. The court continued the mother's services, terminated father's services and ordered that no visits with the minor were to occur while father remained in custody. A copy of the order was mailed to father at the Citrus Heights address. There is no indication father filed a notice of appeal from these orders.
Notice for the 18-month review hearing was mailed to father at both the Citrus Heights address and Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) where father was sent for reception processing as a result of his new criminal offenses.
The report for the 18-month review hearing recommended returning the minor to the mother's custody. At the hearing, based on an agreed disposition, the court terminated the mother's services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The clerk mailed father a copy of the order and a notice of his ...