In re K.C. CA6

Filed 2/14/14 In re K.C. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re K.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the H039225 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP002363 & DP002364)

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In this juvenile dependency matter, father, J.P. appeals an order of the juvenile court sustaining a subsequent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 342 ,1 and ordering guardianship of his children as the permanent plan, with the paternal grandmother appointed as guardian.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

STATEMENT OF THE F ACTS AND CASE2 This is the fourth of father’s appeals. The origins of this matter are described in detail in our previous decision, In re K.C. et al.(Jun. 5, 2012, H036896) [nonpub. opn.] (K.C. I). To summarize, Father had two children, K.C. and her brother Z.J., as to whom he informally shared custody with their mother, T.C. (Mother). The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) initiated dependency proceedings after Z.J. suffered severe brain injuries that doctors considered non-accidental. The Department eventually concluded that the injuries had been sustained while Z.J. was in the home of Mother, but were likely caused by a third party and not either of the parents. On April 7, 2011, the juvenile court sustained original petitions as to both children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. It placed Z.J. with the children’s paternal grandmother, J.W. (Grandmother), while placing K.C. with Father under the supervision of the Department. We ultimately affirmed these orders, with modifications, in K.C. I, supra, H036896. The second appeal addressed the court’s finding that its previous disposition placing K.C. with Father was not effective in protecting her. We affirmed the court’s order with modifications. (In re K.C. (Dec. 12, 2012, H037296) [nonpub. opn.] (K.C. II).) The third appeal challenged orders from the six and 12-month review hearings that terminated services for Father and reduced his visitation. We reversed the order terminating services and directed the Department to afford Father additional services unless new circumstances prevailing upon remand supported a finding that services were unwarranted. (In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323, 334 (K.C.).)