In re Sheila K. CA1/5

Filed 8/28/13 In re Sheila K. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re SHEILA K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137166 v. J.W. et al., Defendants and Respondents; (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. OJ12019554) SHEILA K., Appellant.

The minor, Sheila K. (appellant), appeals the juvenile court’s disposition, which awarded custody of her to her presumed father Michael K. (Father), directed the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) to provide him six months of informal services, and terminated its jurisdiction over appellant under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300.1 We affirm, concluding appellant forfeited her objections to the disposition.

1 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

BACKGROUND Appellant, born in February 2010, was taken into protective custody on September 8, 2012, and placed in a foster home after her mother J.W. (Mother), the custodial parent, was hospitalized from overdosing on Vicodin. The Agency filed a petition alleging appellant was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The allegations related to Mother’s current and past use of Vicodin, Mother’s history of housing instability, and Father’s criminal history, as well as the fact that two older siblings are dependents of the juvenile court in a legal guardianship. Father was present at the detention hearing and was determined to be appellant’s presumed father. Father had recently been incarcerated for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell; he was released in June 2012. On September 18, 2012, a notice was filed reflecting that appellant had been released to Father’s care. In its September 24 jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency recommended the section 300 petition be dismissed and appellant remain in Father’s custody. The report indicated Father had demonstrated his ability to care for appellant and appellant was doing well and was bonded with Father. Father was present at the November 14, 2012, contested disposition hearing; Mother was not present, despite having been ordered to appear. At the hearing, the juvenile court dismissed, on Agency’s motion, certain allegations against Father in the section 300 petition. All parties agreed to the court’s taking jurisdiction under the petition’s allegations pertaining to Mother. Appellant requested that the juvenile court retain jurisdiction after awarding custody to Father, in order to continue formal supervision. The juvenile court found appellant was within the jurisdiction of the court under section 300, awarded custody to Father, directed the Agency to provide Father six months of “informal family maintenance services,” and terminated its jurisdiction over appellant. This appeal followed. Mother and Father did not actively participate in the appeal.