Antonio People v. Superior Court CA1/2

Filed 10/17/14 Antonio P. v. Superior Court CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ANTONIO P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A142604 FRANCISCO COUNTY, (San Francisco County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JD13-3309) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Antonio P. (father), father of three-year-old Bonnie P., seeks review by extraordinary writ, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452,1 of the juvenile court’s findings and orders, in which the court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Father contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided in the form of frequent and regular visitation. We shall deny the petition for extraordinary writ.

1 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 18, 2013, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed an original petition alleging that Bonnie P. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b),(g), and (j). Specifically, the petition alleged, inter alia, that father, who was Bonnie’s presumed father, was incarcerated at San Bruno jail and was unable to provide for the then two-year-old child; that he had an extensive criminal history and a history of being involved with illegal drugs, domestic violence, and extended incarcerations, which placed Bonnie at risk of harm and neglect; that the mother’s current whereabouts were unknown; and that both parents had failed to reunify with older siblings who had been removed from their home. In a detention report filed on November 18, 2013, the Agency reported that Bonnie had been placed in protective custody on November 14, after father was arrested on an outstanding narcotics warrant. At the time of father’s arrest, Bonnie was with him in a hotel room, where paraphernalia related to crack cocaine was found. Father’s girlfriend was also present in the hotel room and narcotics were found on her person. Bonnie had been a court dependent from her birth in 2011 until June 2012, during which time father received family reunification and family maintenance services. Bonnie’s mother did not engage in any services and, upon dismissal of the dependency, the court granted father full custody of Bonnie. Father had six other children between the ages of 14 and 24, none of whom he had raised. One of those children had been made a court dependent and father had failed to successfully reunify with that child. On November 19, 2013, the juvenile court ordered Bonnie detained, and further ordered that she be placed in foster care, with father to have supervised visitation. In a disposition report filed on December 24, 2013, the Agency reported that father remained incarcerated. The social worker had met with father, who told her that he was on probation and had been working to have his probation transferred to Georgia, where his wife—who is not Bonnie’s mother—lived. Father had been making extended visits to Georgia, where Bonnie had been living with his wife. He recently had to bring Bonnie back to California, however, because his wife was undergoing chemotherapy