S.H. v. Super. Ct. CA6

Filed 1/23/14 S.H. v. Super. Ct. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

S.H., No. H040329 (Santa Clara Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. JD21486)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Respondent;

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner S.H. (father) is the biological father of now two-year-old T.H. Father filed this petition for extraordinary writ to challenge the trial court’s orders terminating reunification services to T.H.’s mother, S.P. (mother), and setting a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 for February 27, 2014. For the reasons stated here, we will grant the petition and stay the section 366.26 hearing until the trial court decides to grant or deny petitioner’s request for reunification services.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

I. JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS Mother gave birth to T.H. in October 2011. At that time, and continuing until June 2013, father was incarcerated “for drug related crimes perpetrated while in the company of [mother].” In September 2012, T.H.’s maternal grandmother petitioned the probate court for guardianship of T.H. The probate court, in turn, petitioned the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) to investigate the matter. The Department filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), obtained a protective custody warrant, and temporarily detained T.H. The petition listed father as T.H.’s alleged father. After an initial hearing, the court authorized the Department to place T.H. temporarily with her maternal grandmother for the duration of the dependency proceedings. The trial court set a jurisdiction and disposition hearing for November 28, 2012, and sent an order for father’s appearance to father’s penal fire camp. Father waived his right to attend that hearing. As discussed in the jurisdiction and disposition report prepared by the Department for the hearing, mother reported she had been “together” with father since 2007 and that they were living together when T.H. was conceived. In addition to T.H., mother has three other children. Maternal grandmother is the guardian of these other children. Both mother and father have extensive criminal records and are registered narcotics offenders. The Department recommended finding T.H. a dependent of the court and providing family reunification services to mother. Regarding father, the Department recommended no provision of services because “paternity has not been established.” At the November 28, 2012 hearing, the trial court found true the allegations of an amended juvenile dependency petition, adjudged T.H. a dependent of the court, admitted the social worker’s report into evidence, continued T.H.’s placement with maternal grandmother, ordered that mother receive services from the family reunification program,