The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
M.L., father of the minor, appeals from orders terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Appellant contends that because there was no finding he was an unfit parent, the court could not terminate his parental rights. We affirm.
One-year-old J.L. was placed in protective custody in December 2009 due to the mother's arrest for driving under the influence. Appellant was in state prison at the time.
The disposition report stated appellant had an 18-year criminal history with crimes related to controlled substances, theft, and violence. He had participated in anger management and parenting classes in the past. The report recommended offering appellant services although he had spent much of his life in prison and had no relationship with the minor. At the disposition hearing in March 2010, the juvenile court found appellant was a presumed father and ordered services for him. The plan required him to participate in domestic violence and substance abuse programs while in prison to the extent the programs were available to him.
The six-month review report filed in August 2010 recommended termination of services. The report stated the social worker had not had any contact with appellant although he had sent three letters to appellant. The social worker had contacted appellant's prison counselor regarding appellant's participation in programs and discovered no evidence appellant had done any of the programs available to him. The report concluded that neither parent could care for the minor at the current time. If appellant had shown any participation in services, the social worker could have recommended additional time for reunification, but appellant had not done so.
A supplemental report provided a letter from appellant which stated he was scheduled to begin classes that included anger management and parenting. The report also provided a concurrent planning report from the State Department of Social Services that indicated the current caretaker wanted to adopt the minor.
A second supplemental report provided a memorandum from the Department of Corrections which stated that appellant had participated in victim awareness, anger management, and stress management classes in September and October 2010. The memorandum further listed appellant's various rules violations, which included possession of drugs and contraband, refusal to drug test, and battery. The most recent rules violation for possession of drugs occurred in late October 2010.
At the review hearing in November 2010, the juvenile court terminated services for both parents, finding by clear and convincing evidence that they had failed to participate in services. The court continued the minor in relative placement and set a section 366.26 hearing. Appellant did not challenge the findings by extraordinary writ.
The report for the section 366.26 hearing recommended termination of parental rights and adoption by the relative caretaker. At the hearing the court followed the social worker's recommendation, finding clear and convincing evidence the minor was likely to be adopted, and terminated parental rights. The box for item 7 on mandatory Judicial Council form JV-320, which states "The court previously made a finding denying or terminating reunification services under ...