In re Amanda A. CA4/1

Filed 9/20/24 In re Amanda A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Amanda A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084041 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15973) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARMANDO T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lelah S. Forrey-Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Armando T. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s April 19, 2024 order denying him custody of his 10-year-old daughter Amanda A. Following a multi-day, contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court found it was in Amanda’s best interest to remain temporarily in foster care rather than be placed out of state with Father. The court reached its decision after finding (1) Amanda and Father had not had a relationship for years; (2) she experienced emotional distress when he contacted or attempted to visit her; (3) she was traumatized by her stepfather’s sexual abuse; and (4) she struggled in previous placements away from her mother and stepbrother. To build their relationship, the court ordered additional services for Amanda and Father, including conjoint therapy and increased visitation. On appeal, Father contends the juvenile court (1) may have applied the wrong legal standard when it found it would be “detrimental” to place Amanda with Father; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s placement decision; and (3) Amanda should have been placed with him. As we explain, we conclude (1) the juvenile court correctly considered Amanda’s best interest in making its placement decision; (2) its decision to wait to place Amanda with Father was a proper exercise of discretion; and (3) its reasoning to defer this placement is supported by substantial evidence. We thus affirm the order. I. In November 2023, San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a petition on behalf of Amanda under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d). The petition alleged (1) Amanda had been