In re Aiden L. CA2/3

Filed 8/29/13 In re Aiden L. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re AIDEN L., a Person Coming Under B246475 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK94374) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HARLEY L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn Mordetsky, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed and remanded. Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION Father appeals from the order of the juvenile court declaring his son Aiden (2.5 years old) a dependent of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)1 Father contends the court abused its discretion in denying him all contact with the child based solely on the child’s age. We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Aiden was detained from his mother, Nicole C.,2 after she was arrested on drug- related charges and left Aiden in the care of her boyfriend’s sister. The child was filthy. Father had been involved in another dependency and was denied visitation with another child for failure to comply with his case plan. Father had also multiple convictions for possession of controlled substance and one conviction for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse. The social worker located father in jail in Los Angeles on a conviction of possession of controlled substance where he was serving a 16-month sentence. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found father to be Aiden’s presumed father. The court ordered family reunification services for father. Father appeared at the following hearing and informed the court that his release date was February 23, 2013. The court ordered the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) to provide father with reunification services once he was no longer incarcerated. Father’s attorney provided the court with relative information sheets and explained that the current caretaker would be willing to monitor father’s visits. Counsel asked the court to order the Department to evaluate the caretaker and other relatives to serve as visitation monitors and to facilitate telephone calls while father was in custody. The court ordered the Department to evaluate the monitors for father “once he’s released from incarceration.” The court also assured father he could write to Aiden.