S.L. v. Superior Court CA2/6

Filed 9/22/14 S.L. v. Superior Court CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

S.L. et al., 2d Civil No. B256801 (Super. Ct. No. JV42903) Petitioners, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent;

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

S. L. (Mother) and J. S. (Father) file petitions for extraordinary writs (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452, 8.456) to review orders of the juvenile court bypassing their request for family reunification services with their child K. L., a person coming under the juvenile court law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b), 361.5, subd. (b).)1 We conclude, among other things: 1) the trial court did not err by denying family reunification services because Father did not establish a presumed father status, and 2) it did not err by bypassing family reunification services for Mother because of her history

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

of drug abuse and resistance to treatment. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).) The petitions are denied. FACTS On January 7, 2014, the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile dependency petition (§ 300, subd. (b)) alleging Mother failed to protect K. L., a two-year-old girl, from abuse and neglect. On January 3, Mother was arrested for using and being under the influence of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and "willful cruelty" to a child. The little girl was dirty and hungry. She was in a car outside a fast food restaurant and had a large bruise on her forehead. Mother was asleep in the car. When law enforcement arrived, Mother "was fidgeting" and "appeared confused." DSS placed the child into protective custody because of Mother's "chronic substance abuse problem." On January 8, 2014, the trial court ruled that K. L. "is a person described by Section[] 300 . . . (b) [and] (g)" and that "detention of the minor[] is required." It authorized visits by the child to see Mother at the county jail. In its revised findings and orders after dispositional hearing, the trial court found: 1) K. L.'s "out-of-home placement is necessary," 2) the "current placement is appropriate," 3) Father is the biological father of K. L., and 4) contact and visitation between Father and K. L. is "not in [the] minor's best interest." Father was convicted of robbery in 2011. He was released from state prison on March 14, 2014. On March 27, he took a paternity test that proved he was K. L.'s biological father. DSS recommended that Father not receive family reunification services because: 1) he had "a violent criminal history," 2) he "never had a relationship with [K. L.]," and 3) K. L.'s "reunification with him would not be in her best interest." DSS determined Father had not promptly taken the necessary steps to qualify as a "presumed father," and consequently he was not entitled to reunification services.