In re S.T. CA1/3

Filed 12/19/13 In re S.T. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A138447 V.F., (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. JV81064)

Appellant V.F., mother of S.T., appeals from an order, dated February 25, 2013, and filed on March 1, 2013, in which the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction, and awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to father and granted mother supervised visitation.1 Mother challenges those portions of the order’s visitation directives requiring supervision of visits and limiting visits to twice monthly. We conclude mother’s contentions do not require reversal, and accordingly, we affirm.

1 Mother’s April 15, 2013, notice of appeal also seeks review of findings and orders of June 11, 2012, August 6, 2012, September 26, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 28, 2012, December 27, 2012, January 11, 2013, and February 20, 2013. Even assuming those findings and orders are properly before us, mother seeks no affirmative relief regarding them. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals from those findings and orders as abandoned.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In February 2011, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (the agency) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling), seeking to have then three-year-old S.T. be declared a dependent of the juvenile court. At that time S.T. was living with mother and four half-siblings. The petition alleged the child was at risk of physical harm and serious emotional damage based on mother’s physical and emotional abuse of one half-sibling and the physical abuse of another half-sibling. The juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the court and the agency was directed to provide reunification services to mother. The child and half-siblings were placed in the home of the maternal grandparents and mother was granted weekly supervised visits with the children. By May 2011, the agency had located the child’s biological father, who filed a family court request for visits and started to pay child support and provide medical coverage for the child. In an interview with the agency social worker, father reported he had had a previous relationship with mother that lasted two or three years, and he had regularly visited the child from the age of four months old until March 2010 when mother no longer allowed visitation. Father wanted custody of the child if the child was not returned to mother and he asked for reunification services. In October 2011, the juvenile court elevated father’s status to that of presumed father, and granted him reunification services and supervised visits of a minimum of two hours with the agency having discretion to allow unsupervised visits. By the time of the 12-month review hearing, which was conducted over the course of several days, mother had completed her court-ordered mandated services. The child was participating in therapy with both parents. Father had unsupervised visits with the child, and the agency social worker recommended extended overnight visits at the home of father and his girlfriend. Mother had weekly supervised visits, and the agency social worker recommended a change to unsupervised visits. 2 We recite only those facts as are necessary to give context to the issue raised on this appeal.