The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
E.B., father of 12-year-old El.B., five-year-old R.B. and three-year-old E.B., Jr., appeals from a juvenile court order awarding custody to mother, denying visitation for father, and terminating the dependency.*fn1
On appeal, father contends the denial of visitation lacks evidentiary support and exceeds the juvenile court's discretion. We disagree and will affirm the order.
In March 2007, mother and father were arrested for possession of controlled substances for sale, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, child endangerment, and a special allegation of a prior narcotics conviction. El.B. and R.B. were detained as a result of the arrests. A petition was filed alleging that El.B. and R.B. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (g) [no provision for support].*fn2
The July 2007 disposition report stated that, due to his incarceration, father had not visited with the children. The report also stated that, after he was released on bond in June 2007, father had not arranged for visitation or provided contact information to the social worker.
The reports for the six- and 12-month reviews indicated that the parents participated in a reunification case plan. Father began visiting the children in October 2007. In May 2008, the children were returned to mother. In July 2008, father was incarcerated on the charges that had prompted the children's removal. Thereafter, mother transported the children to visitation with father at the San Joaquin County Jail. The dependency was dismissed in January 2009.
In June 2010, a second petition was filed alleging that El.B., R.B. and then-18-month-old E.B., Jr., came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b), (g) and (j) [abuse of sibling]. The petition alleged that the children had been taken into protective custody after the parents were arrested on criminal charges related to drug and weapons sales. The petition added that El.B. reported hearing gunshots in his neighborhood, did not feel safe in the neighborhood, and was aware that the parents sold marijuana.
The report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing noted that father had been convicted on charges related to drugs, weapons, and child endangerment, and was sentenced to state prison for four years. The report opined that father's incarceration would preclude him from completing a crucial component of any reunification plan, i.e., demonstrating that, following his release from custody, he willingly would refrain from all narcotics activities. The report recommended that father not receive reunification services because such services would be detrimental to the children.
Father submitted on the issue of jurisdiction and the matter was continued to December 2010 for a contested disposition hearing.
At the December 14, 2010, contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reunification services would be detrimental to the children based on the following facts: father is incarcerated for a drug-related crime; he has a 25-year prison history of incarcerations for narcotics activities, and the children's safety in the home can be guaranteed only by preventing ...