T.S. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1

Filed 8/14/14 T.S. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

T.S., Petitioner, v. A141965 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. JV120220-1, Respondent; JV120220-2, JV120220-3) HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The three children of petitioner T.S. (Father), L.S., then six years old, W.S., four years old, and D.S., two years old, were the subject of dependency petitions, filed December 26, 2012, alleging Father and the children’s mother negligently failed to provide them with necessary medical care. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 300, subd. (b).) All three children were found to be dependents of the court, and Father was granted visitation and reunification services.3 Following a contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(1), (3). 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 3 The juvenile court’s rulings with respect to the children’s mother, who left the family, are not at issue in this petition and will not be discussed.

court entered an order finding that reasonable services had been provided, terminating reunification services to Father, and finding by clear and convincing evidence that return of the children to Father would be detrimental. The court scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. On June 29, 2014, Father filed a petition for an extraordinary writ in this court, seeking an order directing the juvenile court to vacate its order terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing and to provide him further reunification services. Father contends the juvenile court’s finding of detriment was not supported by substantial evidence, the reunification services and visitation provided to him were not adequate, and the court should have found extenuating circumstances allowing additional time for services. The factual circumstances underlying Father’s claims of error are known to the parties and are summarized in the “Opposition to Petition for Extraordinary Writ,” filed in this matter on July 16, 2014, by the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Agency). A. Detriment At the 12-month hearing, “[a]fter considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f), 1st par.) “A substantial risk of detriment means that ‘returning a child to parental custody represents some danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-being.’ [Citation.] [¶] In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in reunification services. [Citations.] The court must also consider the efforts or progress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home placement.’ ” (In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 965–966.) We review a juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (In re B.S. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 246, 252.)