In re I.F. CA3

Filed 8/20/14 In re I.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

In re I.F. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C074326 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD233229, JD233230, JD233231, & JD233232) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Jose F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jose F., father of the minors, appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 356, 358, 395.)1 Father argues the court erred by failing to place the minors with him as the noncustodial parent. He further contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that placement with him would be detrimental to the minors. Finally, father asserts that, if he is considered a custodial parent, substantial

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

evidence did not support removal of the minors because there was no substantial danger to the well-being of the minors and there were other reasonable means to protect the minors without removal from his physical custody. We affirm. FACTS The family consists of a father who sees his role as providing support for the family and a mother whose primary responsibility is caring for the four boys ranging in age from ten years to two years old. In October 2012 father reported mother was leaving the minors without supervision while mother claimed she was the victim of father’s domestic violence. The parents agreed to a safety plan requiring mother to leave the home and have her contact with the minors supervised by the grandparents. Father filed for divorce and told the social worker mother was abusing prescription drugs. Mother did not leave the home because the parents reconciled, but, by December 2012, mother took the minors and went to live with the maternal grandparents after an argument with father over child support. In January 2013 the social worker spoke with father who said mother was not happy with the paternal relatives in the house so he told his relatives their supervision was no longer necessary. Father appeared more concerned about his relationship with the mother than about the minors’ welfare. In later conversations with the mother, the social worker learned there was a domestic violence incident the day mother left the home and observed fading bruises on mother’s arm. The parents agreed to an informal supervision plan which provided that the minors would remain with the maternal grandparents, who would supervise mother’s contact with the minors, and the parents would engage in services. The informal services included drug treatment for mother and an anger management program for father. Mother struggled with services and tested positive for methamphetamine in February and March 2013. Mother entered a residential drug treatment program in March 2013 but was discharged two weeks later and went back to father’s home. In April 2013 mother