O.B. v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 6/16/14 O.B. v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

O.B., F069248 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. JP000838) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest. THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. O.B., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

O.B. (father), in propria persona, petitions (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to overturn a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing as to his one-year-old son Braden H. However, father fails to explain in his petition what was erroneous about the juvenile court’s decision, let alone how he was prejudiced. Accordingly, we will dismiss his petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND When Braden was one month old, his mother left him with a stranger, who was unable to care for the infant. The mother also neglected the infant to the point that he required hospitalization for apparent failure-to-thrive. It became apparent that the mother had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues that prevented her from providing Braden with regular care and placed him at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness. Meanwhile, father had no relationship with Braden and was considered the infant’s alleged father. Under these circumstances, Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) initiated dependency proceedings for Braden. In the summer of 2013, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Braden, removed him from mother’s custody, and granted the mother reunification services. At that time, the court found father was not entitled to services due to his alleged father status. When subsequent paternity testing revealed the high probability of paternity, the court elevated father to presumed father status and ordered reunification services for him.2 Although father had been recently sentenced to serve a two-year eight-