In re Caitlyn I. CA1/5

Filed 11/12/13 In re Caitlyn I. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re CAITLYN L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137087 v. DAVID L., (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 3799-DEP) Defendant and Appellant.

David L. (father) appeals a juvenile court order denying his petition to modify the dispositional order denying him reunification services for his daughter Caitlyn L. (daughter) under the bypass provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b).1 We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Daughter, born in 2003, is the child of father and M.D. (mother), who are no longer together. The child welfare referrals on the family date back to 2004, and include reports of domestic violence, physical abuse of the minor by mother, drug use by both

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 1

parents, and dirty or unsafe living conditions. Father has longstanding issues of drug abuse and a criminal history that includes convictions for drug-related offenses, trespassing, and inflicting injury on a spouse or cohabitant. In November 2011, respondent Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) filed a petition alleging daughter was a child described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) in that (1) mother had failed to provide daughter with adequate medical care and daughter was suffering from severe tooth decay; (2) mother had a substance abuse problem placing daughter at risk; (3) mother and her boyfriend had exposed daughter to domestic violence; (4) father had a longstanding substance abuse problem and criminal history placing the child at risk; and (5) father was currently incarcerated and was unable to provide care and support for daughter. In the report prepared for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Department recommended that daughter be removed from mother’s custody and placed with her maternal aunt, that mother receive reunification services, and that father be denied reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), which provides that services need not be provided to a parent when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, “the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition.” According to the report, “[Father] has participated in no less than three different residential treatment programs, attending Turning Point residential twice. In the last three years, [father] has resisted treatment on no fewer than two occasions as indicated by his second stay at Turning Point residential treatment and his brief stay at Jericho residential treatment program in July 2011.” On December 12, 2011, both parents submitted on the allegations in the dependency petition, and father, who was still incarcerated, submitted to Department’s bypass recommendation. Father’s counsel noted, “[Father] certainly wants to be more involved and engaged in his daughter’s life. Unfortunately, he will be in custody for probably another six months. He has signed up for Starting Point. He’s taking a