In re Brooke G. CA5

Filed 8/1/14 In re Brooke G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re BROOKE G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F068724 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ300053-3) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION WILLIAM H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Commissioner. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Amy K. Cobb, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Franson, J.

William H., a noncustodial father, appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order denying him custody of his 19-month-old daughter Brooke under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.1 He contends the juvenile court erred in not specifying a factual basis for its determination that returning Brooke to his custody would be detrimental. Alternatively, he contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In August 2013, police were called after then eight-month-old Brooke was found on the floor crying and her mother, Jennifer, was intoxicated and asleep in bed. Jennifer was unaware that Brooke had fallen on the floor. Brooke was taken into protective custody by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department), evaluated in the emergency room and released. Jennifer was arrested for child endangerment. Jennifer has a history of substance abuse, child welfare intervention and failure to benefit from family reunification and voluntary family maintenance services. Consequently, the department filed a dependency petition on Brooke’s behalf, alleging she came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction based on Jennifer’s failure to protect her. The department identified William as Brooke’s alleged father. The juvenile court ordered Brooke detained pursuant to the petition and offered Jennifer substance abuse treatment and parenting classes. The department placed Brooke in foster care. In September 2013, the juvenile court convened the jurisdictional hearing. William made his first appearance and was appointed counsel. William’s attorney advised the court that William believed he could be Brooke’s father. He had taken her into his home and she lived with him and he has acted as her father. William requested a