In re Alice Z. CA4/3

Filed 6/24/14 In re Alice Z. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re ALICE Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G049744 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP022387) v. OPINION MICHAEL Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 1.) Affirmed. Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.

INTRODUCTION Michael Z., father of minor Alice Z., appeals from an order of the juvenile court maintaining jurisdiction and supervision over Alice after the court found that Michael and Alice’s mother, Tara Z., had not made sufficient progress in their case plan to warrant an end to supervision. Police officers detained three-year-old Alice – and arrested her parents – after the officers found Alice living in appalling filth. Her parents regained custody of Alice after about a month, but under close supervision by Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). Over the ensuing two years, Michael and Tara attended classes and counseling sessions, endeavoring both to resolve problems in their marriage and to learn proper parenting skills. The court then had to determine whether to keep the family under SSA supervision or to close the case. After a hearing in February 2014, the court found the parents were taking better care of Alice and their home only because they knew SSA could check up on them at any time. Without SSA’s oversight, the court concluded, Alice’s living conditions would rapidly deteriorate until they were back where they were when police officers had found her naked and filthy nearly two years before. Accordingly, the juvenile court ordered SSA to continue to supervise the family. We affirm the order. Substantial evidence supported the court’s determination that supervision is still required to ensure Alice’s safety and well-being. The trial court could reasonably conclude Michael and Tara have not internalized the minimum standards of housekeeping necessary to maintain a healthy and safe living space for their daughter. Its determination SSA needs to keep an eye on them still, for Alice’s sake, is not one we can overturn. FACTS Anaheim police officers picked Alice up in March 2012, after responding to an anonymous request for a welfare check. As the officers arrived at the residence, Alice – three years old, naked, filthy, with matted hair – unlocked and opened the door of her