In re E.H. CA4/3

Filed 8/27/13 In re E.H. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re E.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G048329 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. DP023533, v. DP023534, DP023535)

JONATHAN R., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jacki C. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors. * * *

The children in this matter were declared dependent children of the court as a result of their parents’ no contest pleas to a petition alleging Jonathan R., the presumed father (father), disciplined one of the children in an excessive manner. The court did not remove the children from their home, but ordered the children to remain with their mother on the condition father not live in the residence or have unsupervised contact with the children. The court ordered the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to provide father with enhancement services. Father appeals, contending the court erred in failing to order “reunification services” for him. We affirm. I FACTS Father and A. H. (mother) are the parents of three young children. The family was living together when the children became the subject of a dependency petition filed in the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) According to the petition, father tied six-year-old J.H.’s legs together and struck him twice with a sandal. The petition further alleged father has used this as a regular means of discipline. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b).) The initial detention report recommended the children remain with mother and that father receive monitored visitation. Father was arrested as a result of the incident and was in custody during the juvenile court proceedings. The court appointed counsel for mother and father at the first court appearance, found father to be the presumed father, and ordered the children’s temporary care and placement with mother. The court issued a restraining order against father, restraining him from contacting the children other than during court-ordered visitation, and directing that he remain at least 100 yards from the family residence. The court also directed SSA to prepare a case plan pursuant to sections 358 and 358.1. Lastly, the court ordered twice a week monitored visitation while father remained in custody.