(Super. Ct. No. JD215812)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
R.R., father of the minor, appeals from orders sustaining the supplemental petition, removing the minor from father's custody, and returning to a permanent plan of long-term foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 395; statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support both the jurisdictional findings of the supplemental petition and the order removing the minor from his custody. Appellant further asserts there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.). We conclude appellant is procedurally barred from raising the ICWA issue and that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings and orders and affirm the orders.
J.R., then one year old, was first detained in May 1999 in Los Angeles County. The parents had a history of violence and appellant is developmentally delayed and an Alta Regional Center client (Alta). After 12 months of services, mother's services were terminated and the case was transferred to Sacramento County to facilitate services for appellant. By March 2001, the case was transferred back to Los Angeles County, the minor was placed with mother, and jurisdiction was terminated in October 2001.
Los Angeles County filed a new petition in September 2004 alleging mother caused the death of a sibling, thereby placing the minor at risk. The minor was detained and eventually placed with the paternal grandmother.
At the disposition hearing in December 2004, the court denied reunification services to mother and ordered services for appellant. The minor was in therapy with serious emotional and mental health issues. At the six-month review hearing, the court ordered further services for appellant.
The social worker filed a petition to transfer the case to Sacramento County because appellant and the minor resided there. The court transferred the case and Sacramento County accepted the transfer in September 2005.
At the 12-month review hearing in December 2005, the court terminated appellant's services and set a section 366.26 hearing. At the section 366.26 hearing, the court ordered a permanent plan of long-term placement for the minor.
The review reports from the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) in 2006 and 2007 indicated the minor had ongoing emotional problems. By September 2007, the paternal grandmother was no longer able to care for the minor due to his behavior and he was removed from her care. The minor had very serious behavioral problems and was placed in a residential treatment facility.
During 2008 and 2009, the minor remained in the level 14 group home, showing slow improvement in his behavior and coping skills. Appellant visited the minor regularly.
In January 2010, appellant filed a petition for modification seeking placement of the minor or renewed services. The court granted the petition, ordering renewed services for appellant.
In March 2010, the minor moved to a level 9 group home. The review report in September 2010 stated the minor was emotionally immature, manipulative, demanded attention, shifted blame to others, saw himself as a victim, and continued to have emotional outbursts. The minor was morbidly obese, although he had recently lost weight when he participated in a martial arts class. The report stated appellant was easily controlled by the minor and placing the minor with appellant was not in the minor's best interests due to appellant's skill deficits. The minor was capable of performing at or above grade level in school but struggled somewhat due to his inability or unwillingness to focus. He attended school regularly and had few behavioral problems. The minor was now visiting appellant on weekends, but the Department had concerns about appropriate parenting and the minor's manipulation.
An addendum report discussed appellant's services, noting that, as an Alta client, appellant continued to receive support services and that he was referred to additional services to assist him in parenting and nutritional education. The social worker stated that appellant was deficient in his ability to apply the knowledge acquired from service providers. The minor was not actively participating in therapy and manipulated appellant with tantrums and tears. Further, the minor was aggressive to the point of abuse of appellant to get his way. The addendum concluded that the Department could not recommend placing the minor in appellant's home. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the court ordered the minor returned to appellant in January 2011.
A Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) report in April 2011 stated that, in meetings, the minor spoke over, or for, appellant. The minor was in the fifth grade with fluctuating attendance and very poor grades.
A concurrent review report stated that appellant deferred to the minor in confusing situations. The minor had gained additional weight since placement; however, appellant avoided discussing the subject with the minor because "it upsets him." At school, the minor appeared to be angrier since placement with appellant and his negative behavior increased. The minor had to be restrained once at school for an angry outburst but thereafter his behavior was more positive. Therapy sessions were replaced by a Wrap Around (WRAP) program. The minor admitted he had anger management issues and engaged in verbal altercations with appellant. The minor was parentified and tended to take on responsibilities he felt appellant did not handle properly. Although intensive services were being provided to support and maintain the placement, both appellant and the minor were resistant to services. Appellant was unable to incorporate skills he learned into the daily challenges of raising the minor and refused to assert himself as ...