(Super. Ct. Nos. 53001808, 53001809)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
W.L. (father) appeals from the juvenile court's orders denying his petitions to change existing orders (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 § 388) and terminating his parental rights as to minors Blake L. (Blake) and Paige L. (Paige). (§ 366.26.) He contends that: 1) the juvenile court improperly delegated discretion to the minors as to whether visitation would occur; and 2) the court failed to advise him of his constitutional rights during the jurisdictional hearing and thus violated his right to due process.
As we will explain, because father's arguments are unsupported by the record and his claims are not cognizable on appeal at this stage in the process, we shall affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The earliest document in the clerk's transcript was filed approximately a year and a half after these proceedings began. Although we are able to glean the proceedings' prior history from social workers' subsequent reports, we only detail that small portion of the history of this case which is relevant to disposition of the issues on appeal.
Detention from Guardians Through Termination of Parents' Services
In February 2010 the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed section 300 petitions to remove Blake (born in August 1999) and Paige (born in October 2004) from the custody of their legal guardian, alleging that he and his roommate had physically abused the minors. The Department further alleged in amended petitions that mother knew of the abuse and failed to protect the minors, and that father had a continuing 14-year history of methamphetamine abuse, which rendered him incapable of caring for the minors.
The juvenile court held a detention hearing on February 11, 2010, and jurisdiction hearings on March 25, 2010, April 23, 2010, and April 29, 2010.
At the March 25, 2010 hearing, father made his first court appearance, with counsel. The juvenile court advised father of his constitutional rights; father said he understood them. Counsel acknowledged receipt of the amended petition, waived its reading, stipulated that father had been advised of his rights, and entered a denial of the petition.
At the April 23, 2010 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court noted that the second amended section 300 petition had just been filed and verified that all parties had received it. The court terminated the minors' legal guardianship. In mother's absence, her counsel acknowledged receipt of the new petition, waived its reading, stipulated that she had been previously advised of her rights, and re-entered her original denial. Father was present with counsel; after mother's counsel was heard and re-entered her denial, father's counsel said, "All the same" and entered a denial of the new petition on father's behalf. The court continued the hearing to April 29, 2010.
At the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing on April 29, 2010, father was present and submitted on the Department's report as to the issue of jurisdiction. The court sustained the allegations of the second amended section 300 petition and made certain findings.*fn2 As to disposition, the court ordered the minors removed from their ...