In re Quincy M. CA3

Filed 12/24/13 In re Quincy M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 QUINCY M. et al., Persons Coming Under the C073342 Juvenile Court Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. SERVICES AGENCY, 12JVSQ2769002 & 12JVSQ2936801) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.O., mother of the minors, appeals from the orders of the juvenile court placing the minors with the father and terminating dependency. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 Mother argues substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s findings that further supervision of the placement was unnecessary and that termination of the dependency was in the minors’ best interests. Mother also argues the court could not

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

place the younger child with father because the evidence did not show he was a presumed father to that child. We affirm. FACTS The minors, Quincy M., age five, and Alexis M., age one, were removed from parental custody in June 2012 when mother, who had alcohol abuse and mental health issues, placed the minors at risk of physical harm. Quincy had previously been removed from his parents in October 2008 for similar reasons and returned in March 2010 after both parents participated in services. When detained, Alexis had an appointment to see a neurologist to investigate her possible developmental delays. The disposition report filed in August 2012 recommended the court declare the minors dependent and then terminate the dependency with custody awarded to father. The report stated father had relapsed into alcohol abuse seven months before the current case, but took active steps to regain sobriety. Father maintained his employment, housing, and transportation and continued to participate in programs designed to support his sobriety. In September 2012 the court set a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing and granted the social worker discretion to place the minors with father. An addendum report in October 2012 stated the minors were moved to father’s home in Southern California soon after an overnight visit with him in Shasta County. The social worker visited father’s home two weeks later and found the minors comfortable with father and doing well. Alexis had been seen by a pediatrician and was referred to a neurologist and a speech therapist. Father hired a nanny to care for Alexis pending further information from Inland Regional Center on an appropriate daycare. A second addendum provided verification of father’s self-referral to treatment following his relapse in 2011. The court sustained the petition and found father was a nonoffending and noncustodial parent at the time the petition was filed. The court, applying section 361.2, then considered placement with father, addressing the question of detriment to the