In Re Ninfa S.

62 Cal.App.4th 808 (1998) In re NINFA S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RUBEN S., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. D029325. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

March 4, 1998. [809] COUNSEL

Mary Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John J. Sansone, County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Kathryn E. Krug, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Thomas E. Nagle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

OPINION

McDONALD, J.

Ruben S. (Ruben) appeals the order terminating his parental rights entered after a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing (the .26 hearing). Ruben argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance of the .26 hearing to permit the completion of paternity testing, and that by preventing him from establishing his paternity he was deprived of his due process right to participate in the .26 hearing.

[810] I. Factual and Procedural Background

In June 1996 Ninfa S. was declared a dependent after the court entered true findings on a petition alleging jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). At the dispositional hearing the court found Ruben was the "natural alleged father" and gave Ruben 60 days within which to show he was a "presumed father."

From July 1996 through April 1997, Ruben had no contact with Ninfa, made no effort to prove presumed father status, and did not complete paternity testing. After two continuances, the six-month review hearing was held in April 1997. The court terminated reunification services and referred the case to the.26 hearing. This court affirmed that order. (Ruben S. v. Superior Court (July 29, 1997) D028510 [nonpub. opn.].)