Francis F. v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 9/30/13 Francis F. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FRANCIS F., Petitioner, v. A139364 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LAKE COUNTY, (Lake County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JV320329) LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner Francis F. seeks writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the decision of the juvenile court setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,1 following denial of his petition under section 388 for presumed father status and reunification services. Because the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that granting the section 388 petition was not in the best interests of the minors, and substantial evidence supports the court‟s findings Francis F. is not a presumed father, we deny the petition.

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

BACKGROUND In May 2012, the Lake County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition alleging that three-year-old A.W. and newborn A.W. (baby A.W.) were minors within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to their mother‟s substance abuse and failure to meet the basic needs of baby A.W. Francis F. was identified as the alleged father of baby A.W. Francis F. was in prison at the time of baby A.W.‟s birth and when the section 300 petition was filed. At the June 2012 jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition. At the July disposition hearing, the court declared the minors dependents of the court. Among other things, the juvenile court found that Francis F. “does not meet the standards of statutorily presumed father and therefore is not entitled to family reunification services.” The court scheduled a six-month review hearing for December, although the hearing was continued to February 2013. Francis F. remained in prison until his release in January 2013. He was not notified of the detention or jurisdiction hearings, but he did receive notice of the disposition and six-month review hearings. On February 4, Francis F. made his first appearance in juvenile court and was appointed an attorney. On that same date, the court terminated reunification services to the mother of A.W. and baby A.W. In March, Francis F. requested under section 388 that all prior orders relating to him be vacated due to the violation of his due process right to proper notice of the proceedings.2 He also requested that he be granted presumed father status. The Department provided Francis F. with some services pending a ruling on his request for reunification services. Francis F. participated in the services “to varying degrees” from April 4 to May 9. He did not participate in services thereafter and did not contact the Department after May 15. In July 2013, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on Francis F.‟s section 388 petition and denied the petition on July 22. The court set a section 366.26