In re M.F. CA3

Filed 12/11/24 In re M.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

In re M.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C101109 Law.

D.L., (Super. Ct. No. 21DP00134)

Movant and Appellant,

v.

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent;

A.S.,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

The juvenile court denied respondent Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services’s (Department) motion to remove minor M.F. from the home of real party in interest and respondent A.S., M.F.’s de facto parent and prospective adoptive

1

parent. Appellant D.L., M.F.’s great-uncle, motioned the court to change its order arguing placement was more appropriate with him as a relative; the juvenile court denied this motion. D.L. appeals arguing the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard in denying his motion. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 14, 2021, Solano County Health and Social Services filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 for one-week-old M.F. alleging (1) the mother tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and M.F. showed signs of drug exposure and (2) there were other circumstances putting M.F. at a substantial risk of serious harm or neglect. The petition also alleged parental rights had been previously terminated for M.F.’s half sibling. In May 2021, M.F. was placed with A.S. The case was transferred to Butte County in July 2021. On August 9, 2022, the juvenile court terminated parental rights. After the juvenile court terminated parental rights, A.S. requested prospective adoptive parent and de facto parent designations. At the same time, the Department filed an intent to remove M.F. from A.S. under section 366.26, subdivision (n) because D.L., M.F.’s maternal great-uncle who lives in Maine, had been identified as a concurrent plan for adoption of M.F. a year earlier. A.S. objected to removal. In January 2023, after a contested hearing where an adoption specialist and A.S. testified, the juvenile court found it was not in M.F.’s best interests to remove M.F. from A.S. and found A.S. to be the de facto parent and prospective adoptive parent. In October 2023, D.L. filed a motion under section 388 requesting the court change its order denying removal from A.S. D.L. argued M.F. should be placed with him and his wife because they are M.F.’s relatives. The motion alleged, with support from