Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re N.V., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.V

March 14, 2013

IN RE N.V., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
M.V., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. J05419)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.

In re N.V. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Mario V., found to be the alleged father of minor Nadine V. (minor), appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 § 366.26.) He first contends that the juvenile court violated his right to due process by failing to designate him a presumed father. He further contends that section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A) precluded termination of his parental rights because "reasonable reunification services" were not provided to him. As we explain, because his claims are either forfeited or lack merit or both, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 petition as to minor, then a newborn, on April 19, 2010. The petition named mother*fn2 and Mario as minor's parents and alleged that they lived on Aurora Street in Stockton. The petition alleged that minor and mother had tested positive for methamphetamine at minor's birth in April 2010. Minor showed symptoms of drug exposure. Mother admitted using methamphetamine while pregnant up to nearly the time of minor's birth, in the company of Mario, and that she knew it would place minor at risk. She did not obtain prenatal care. Her other children had been in the care of their maternal grandmother for the past year, and neither mother nor Mario had cared for or supported them. Mother and Mario had criminal records and a history of domestic violence. Mario's whereabouts were unknown.

The detention/jurisdiction report indicated that mother reported Mario had been incarcerated for a week and was also currently on parole. The social worker urged mother to notify him of the impending detention hearing.

Mario did not appear at the detention hearing held on April 20, 2010. Mother told the court that Mario was minor's father, was at the hospital when minor was born, and signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDOP), but she did not know where he was at the time of the hearing. The court found that notice had been given as required by law and designated Mario as minor's alleged father.

Mario did not appear at the jurisdiction hearing, held on May 4, 2010. The juvenile court found the allegations of the section 300 petition true as to Mario in his absence. Although the proof of service in the record shows service by certified mail to Mario at the Aurora Street address, county counsel indicted she had not received confirmation of receipt. The court summarily found that notice had been given as required.

Mario did not appear at the next hearing, held on May 11, 2010. County counsel represented to the juvenile court that an absent parent locator had revealed a different address for Mario, on Willow Street in Stockton, and he had been served there. The proof of service shows service to the Willow Street address by first-class mail. The court found that notice had been given and reaffirmed its prior jurisdictional findings as to Mario.

On May 13, 2010, the juvenile court asked the San Joaquin County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) whether minor's paternity had been declared. DCSS replied that it had no record of a declaration of paternity.

The disposition report confirmed that the Agency was not in contact with Mario--he had not responded to any correspondence, he had not attended any court hearings, and he had neither visited nor inquired about minor. The report noted that the superior court had revoked Mario's probation on April 27, 2010, and issued a bench warrant for his arrest on April 28, 2010, for failure to attend drug court. The Agency recommended that the juvenile court not offer services to Mario pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) (whereabouts unknown), but noted that if he established paternity at some later date, he could receive services.

The Agency sent notice of the dispositional hearing to Mario by first-class mail at both the Aurora Street address and the Willow Street address. He did not appear at the hearing, held on June 15, 2010, and the juvenile court ordered minor placed in foster care and reunification services to mother. The court denied services to Mario under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1).

The six-month status review report, filed November 8, 2010, stated that the Agency had had no contact with Mario during the reporting period and his current circumstances were unknown. The Agency recommended terminating mother's reunification services and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for minor.

The Agency sent notice of the upcoming hearing to Mario by first-class mail at the Aurora Street address. Mario did not attend the status hearing, held on January 21, 2011. The juvenile court terminated mother's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.