In re K.C. CA6

Filed 9/15/14 In re K.C. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re K.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the H040291 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP002363 & DP002364)

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

K.P., the father of two dependent children, brings this fifth appeal of orders of the juvenile court. The present appeal is based on his challenge of a juvenile court order that this court previously affirmed in In re K.C. et al.; Santa Cruz Human Services Department v. J.P. (Feb. 14, 2014, H039225) [nonpub. opn.] (K.C.III).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE1 This is the fifth of father’s appeals. The origins of this matter are described in detail in our previous decision, In re K.C. et al.; Santa Cruz Human Resources Department v. T.C. et al. (Jun. 5, 2012, H036896) [nonpub. opn.] (K.C. I). To summarize, Father had two children, K.C. and her brother Z.J., of whom he informally shared custody with their mother, T.C. (Mother). The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) initiated dependency proceedings after Z.J. suffered severe brain injuries that doctors considered non-accidental. The Department eventually concluded that the injuries had been sustained while Z.J. was in the home of Mother, but were likely caused by a third party and not either of the parents. On April 7, 2011, the juvenile court sustained original petitions as to both children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.2 It placed Z.J. with the children’s paternal grandmother, J.W. (Grandmother), while placing K.C. with Father under the supervision of the Department. We ultimately affirmed these orders, with modifications, in K.C. I, supra, H036896. The second appeal addressed the court’s finding that its previous disposition placing K.C. with Father was not effective in protecting her. We affirmed the court’s order with modifications. (In re K.C.; Santa Cruz Human Services Department v. J.P. (Dec. 12, 2012, H037296) [nonpub. opn.] (K.C. II).) The third appeal challenged orders from the six and 12-month review hearings that terminated services for Father and reduced his visitation. We reversed the order terminating services and directed the Department to afford Father additional services