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 H.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. H.A

August 4, 2011

IN RE H.A. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
H.A., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. J29771, J33677, J33678)

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

In re H.A.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appellant, the father of minors H.A., K.T., and R.A., appeals from the juvenile court's orders entered pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26*fn1 hearing finding the minors adoptable, declining to terminate parental rights, and continuing the case for 176 days. (§§ 395, 366.26, subd. (c)(3).)

Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that the minors were adoptable. We shall affirm the juvenile court's orders.

BACKGROUND

In June 2002 13-month-old K.T. was removed from her mother and placed in foster care when the mother was arrested for being under the influence. The Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services (DESS) filed a dependency petition (§ 300) in June 2002. The petition was sustained in August 2002 and dismissed in September 2002, with joint legal custody to the parents and sole physical custody to appellant.

In October 2007 the minors were placed in protective custody after appellant was arrested for physically abusing H.A. at an Oroville grocery store. DESS filed dependency petitions alleging jurisdiction over the minors pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j), which were sustained by the juvenile court in January 2008. At the February 2008 disposition hearing the juvenile court continued the minors' removal, ordered services for appellant, and denied services for the mother.

The December 2008 12-month report recommended returning R.A. and K.T. to the mother and continuing H.A. in foster care, with services for both parents. The mother completed extensive services on her own and had an extended visit with the minors in November 2008. H.A.'s angry outbursts during the visit disturbed his mother, who took him to the emergency room. The examining doctor concluded H.A. was a danger to himself and others, and he was hospitalized.

In December 2008 the juvenile court returned R.A. and K.T. to the mother with maintenance services and continued H.A. in foster care, with an additional six months of services for the parents. The mother abandoned R.A. and K.T. at the DESS offices in March 2009 after being requested to submit to a drug test. DESS filed supplemental petitions for more restrictive placement (§ 387), and R.A. and K.T. were detained later that month.

K.T. was refusing visits with appellant and got physically ill before scheduled visits in January and February 2009. The visits were subsequently canceled. After H.A. told appellant that he hated him and alleged appellant molested him, DESS asked the juvenile court to terminate his visits with appellant.

Six-year-old H.A. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). H.A. repeatedly told his therapist that he hated his father, who should be put back in jail. In June 2009 a foster parent heard him ask his sister R.A., "Do you want to have sex with me?"

The juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition in May 2009.

A June 2009 report related K.T. was in weekly counseling sessions and had been diagnosed with mood disorder and PTSD. K.T.'s verbal reasoning tested as low average and her nonverbal reasoning tested as average. She demonstrated sexualized behavior at the foster home, including acting out with an eight-year-old girl and pulling down the pants of another foster child. In May 2009 K.T.'s therapist told DESS that K.T. reported appellant molested her and the other minors.

An August 2009 report related H.A. was not showing sexualized behavior in his current foster home and was addressing the issue in therapy. H.A. had had five foster care placements since October 2007. He was placed initially in a temporary care home, then spent a year with K.T. and R.A. in a foster home. He was next placed with his mother and the other minors, but removed in November 2008 after he was found to be a danger to himself and others. He was placed in a third foster home after his release from the hospital, but was removed following sexualized behaviors and being molested by a 16-year-old foster child. He was then placed in another foster home, where he had been stable for one and one-half months at the time of the report.

Following a contested hearing in September 2009, the juvenile court terminated services for both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing.

An adoption assessment by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) recommended a plan of adoption without an immediate termination of parental rights. Since 2002, shortly after his birth, seven-year-old H.A. had been in nine foster placements. Since 2002 his sister K.T. had been in five foster homes, and since 2007 R.A. had been ...


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.