(Super. Ct. Nos. 10JD5106, 10JD5107)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Mark S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's judgment continuing the placement of minors James S. and Jonathan S. in the custody of Tiffany T. (mother) and terminating the dependency, and from the court's exit order denying visitation to father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.2, 362.4.)*fn1 He contends the court should have retained jurisdiction because the minors' "drug use, educational struggles, and unrepaired relationship with father" established a need for continued supervision. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2010, Alameda County Social Services (Social Services) filed section 300 petitions as to the 14-year-old minors, alleging: Father had a history of physically abusing the minors, most recently by breaking Jonathan's collarbone and then failing to provide him with medical attention. Father also had a history of domestic violence with the minors' mother and stepmother. The minors feared further physical abuse if returned to father's custody.
According to the detention report, father and the minors' stepmother, who were separated and getting a divorce, had been sharing physical custody of the minors. Father claimed he had been wrongly blamed for disciplining the minors, who were out of control.
The jurisdiction/disposition report recommended placing the minors with mother, offering her family maintenance services, and offering father reunification services. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(3).) Court supervision for mother was advised because she had a history of alcohol abuse.*fn2
After her short-lived marriage to father, mother had married David T. and now lived with him and his son in Copperopolis (Calaveras County). She shared legal custody of the minors with father and had had regular visits with them.
The minors wanted to live with mother and only to visit the stepmother and father. James complained father was calling and texting the minors, trying to pressure them to "get over it."
The minors were failing most of their classes. They acted aggressively and defiantly at school, and James had possessed marijuana with intent to sell. If not for their domestic situation, the school would have expelled them.
Jonathan said he was held back in school because his troubles at home had caused his grades to fall. The minors were in counseling, but father did not want to pay for it.
Father wanted to start reunification services, but believed "his sons [were] the problems."*fn3
On March 29, 2010, the juvenile court in Alameda County ordered the minors detained and placed with mother immediately.
On April 22, 2010, at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, father submitted on jurisdiction and disposition, requesting only supervised visitation. The court sustained the allegations of the section 300 petitions, placed the minors with mother under dependent supervision, ordered family maintenance services for mother and reunification services for father, and ordered "therapeutic visitations" between the minors and father to occur at Social Services' discretion after consultation with the minors' therapist, father's therapist, and father's counsel.
The six-month status review report recommended continuing the existing placement and services and transferring the case to Calaveras County.
Mother engaged in individual and family therapy and drug tested negative. She showed appropriate parenting skills and discipline. She ensured the minors would be assessed for an Individual ...