Derek L. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 11/4/14 Derek L. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DEREK L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA A142789 COUNTY, (Alameda County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. SJ12019936) ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Derek L. (father) petitions this court for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order setting a selection-and-implementation hearing for his young daughter, K.L. He argues (1) insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that K.L. would suffer a substantial risk of detriment if returned to his care, (2) he did not receive reasonable reunification services, and (3) the juvenile court abused its discretion in not extending those services. In this abbreviated opinion,1 we disagree and deny father’s petition.

1 Because father’s petition raises no substantial issues of law or fact, we resolve this cause by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Livermore police arrested father and Laura R. (mother) in their home in November 2012 for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug charges after they were found to be under the influence of heroin and opiates while caring for K.L., who was then six months old. Real party in interest Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)2 (failure to protect) alleging both parents admitted a history of substance abuse and had unstable housing and employment, allegations that were substantiated over the course of proceedings below. K.L. was ordered detained and was then placed with an aunt and uncle. In January 2013, the juvenile court found K.L. was a child described by section 300, subdivision (b), adjudged her a dependent child, and ordered reunification services for both parents. Father’s case plan called for him to receive individual therapy, to participate in parenting-education and substance-abuse programs, and to undergo substance-abuse testing. Because K.L. was younger than three years old at the time she was removed from parental custody, reunification services were to be provided for six months from the dispositional hearing, and for no longer than 12 months from the date she entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Father partially complied with his case plan in the first several months of the reunification period, but subsequently he was discharged from an inpatient treatment program and also tested positive for methamphetamine. Based on the parents’ lack of progress in the first several months of the reunification period, the Agency recommended in June 2013, in advance of what was supposed to be a six-month review hearing in July, that the parents’ reunification services be terminated and that the juvenile court schedule a selection-and-implementation