In re C.H. CA3

Filed 3/26/26 In re C.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C104681 Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. SERVICES AGENCY, 24JV-32877-01)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Father M.H. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services at the 12-month review hearing. On appeal, father contends the juvenile court did not understand the full scope of its discretion when terminating services and his case must be remanded for the juvenile court to clarify whether he is an alleged or presumed parent. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2024, the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 for minor C.H., who was 13 months old. The petition was filed after minor was removed from the home of mother and alleged minor had been living there in deplorable conditions and was left unattended with drug paraphernalia and Fentanyl within reach. At the time of removal, minor was lethargic, severely dehydrated, had trouble breathing, and exhibited facial wounds. After being transported to a hospital, doctors made findings of physical abuse and developmental delays. The petition stated both parents indicated father was minor’s father. The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) that father: (1) had a prior dependency case ending in the termination of parental rights; (2) had a criminal history including possession of a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and inflicting great bodily injury; (3) was currently incarcerated and would be eligible for parole in October 2024; and (4) was unable to protect minor due to being incarcerated. The petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (g), that father was currently incarcerated leaving minor without a safe and sober caregiver and that under subdivision (j) father had a prior termination of parental rights in 2018. Father was appointed counsel at the detention hearing, although neither father nor his counsel was present. The juvenile court found at this hearing there was a substantial danger to minor’s physical health and there were no reasonable means to protect the child absent removal from parents’ physical custody. Accordingly, the juvenile court ordered minor detained from the care of parents.