In re B.J. CA1/3

Filed 9/27/13 In re B.J. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re B.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A137904 T.M., (Alameda County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. OJ12019488)

T.M. (hereafter mother) appeals from a February 14, 2013 jurisdictional and dispositional order, which provided that T.J., as the child‟s presumed father, was entitled to family reunification services.1 On appeal mother argues the evidence was insufficient to support the court‟s finding that T.J. was the child‟s presumed father based on the execution and filing of a voluntary declaration of paternity with the appropriate state agency. We affirm.

1 Mother‟s appeal from the February 14, 2013, order brings up for review the court‟s presumed father finding made in the December 14, 2012, order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395, subd. (a); In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 196 [“[t]he dispositional order is the adjudication of dependency and is the first appealable order in the dependency process”].) Accordingly, we dismiss mother‟s separate appeal from the December 14, 2012, order.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On August 22, 2012, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (hereafter the agency) filed a petition seeking an adjudication that mother‟s then four-month-old child be declared a dependent of the court based on allegations that mother and the child‟s alleged father, T.J., had failed to protect the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) In the agency‟s report prepared for the detention hearing, the social worker reported that T.J. was present at the birth of the child, he was listed as the father on the child‟s birth certificate 3, and he held the child out to the community as his child. However, mother believed T.J. might not be the child‟s biological father. At the August 23, 2012 detention hearing, T.J. requested elevation of his status from alleged father to presumed father, which was opposed by mother. The juvenile court found a sufficient basis to detain the child but allowed placement of the child in the home of T.J. and T.J.‟s mother, where the child had been living since birth. The court also ordered T.J. to submit to a paternity test. On October 11, 2012, the agency social worker filed an addendum report in which she indicated the paternity tests showed T.J. was not the child‟s biological father. In October and November 2012, the court (Hon. Kimberly Briggs) held hearings on the issue of T.J.‟s request for presumed father status. The court admitted into evidence the agency‟s reports and heard testimony from mother, T.J., and T.J.‟s mother.