Ricardo M. v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 12/23/14 Ricardo M. v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RICARDO M., F070239 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD131877, v. JD131878

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; OPINION

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest. THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. William D. Palmer, Judge. Margaret H. Smith, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Thomas G. Morgan, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

At a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)),1 in October 2014, the juvenile court terminated Ricardo M.’s reunification services as to his six-year-old son R.M. and three-year-old daughter L.M. and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. Ricardo challenges the juvenile court’s setting order by extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.) He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that he was provided reasonable services. He also contends the juvenile court erred in not placing the children with their paternal grandparents. Ricardo asks this court to issue a writ directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders terminating his reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing and to order an additional six months of reunification services for him. We find no error and deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In December 2013, the department took then five-year-old R.M., two-year-old L.M., and their eight-week-old half brother Raymond into protective custody after Ricardo and the children’s mother were arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance. The children were placed together in foster care. Ricardo told the investigating social worker that he was not Raymond’s biological father but held Raymond out as his own child. He was aware that the mother used drugs and that Raymond was born positive for methamphetamine. Ricardo said methamphetamine was his drug of choice. On December 27, 2013, the juvenile court convened the initial hearing. Ricardo appeared and the court appointed him counsel. The court continued the hearing because the mother was not present to testify as to Ricardo’s paternity status. The court deemed Ricardo the children’s alleged father and granted him visitation pending the next hearing.