In re N.M. CA1/4

Filed 1/21/15 In re N.M. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re N.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

R.M., Petitioner, v. A143244 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, (Alameda County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. HJ11016291) ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

I. INTRODUCTION By a petition for extraordinary writ, R.M. (Father) challenges an order made after an 18-month permanency review hearing terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 for his six-year-old daughter N.M. (the minor). The hearing is set for January 26, 2015. Father contends: (1) the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) failed to make reasonable efforts to provide him family reunifications services during his

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

1

incarceration; and (2) the court erred in failing to extend reunification services. We deny Father’s petition. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties have set out the details of the these proceedings at considerable length. We recite the facts and procedural history in abbreviated form, leaving out all nonessential facts with respect to the minor’s mother, who is not a party to this writ petition. The then-three-year-old minor was made a dependent of the juvenile court after her parents tried to flee on foot from a stolen vehicle following a police pursuit that ended in a collision. Both parents were arrested for parole and probation violations, stealing a car, and for being in possession of a firearm. The minor’s parents had prior criminal histories and substance abuse issues. They also had a history of leaving the minor with multiple caretakers without making formal plans. At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on January 18, 2013, the court took jurisdiction over the minor and found Father to be the minor’s presumed father. The court ordered that both parents receive reunification services. The Agency’s “Status Review Report” prepared for the six-month review hearing indicated that Father was in minimal compliance with his case plan because he was incarcerated. Although Santa Rita Jail, where Father was incarcerated at the time, offered many programs, Father had to be isolated from other inmates because he was a former gang member. As a result, he was not able to participate in any of the programs available at the facility. The court received the Agency’s report into evidence, found that reasonable services had been provided by the Agency, and extended family reunification services to the parents. At the 12-month report and review hearing, the Agency recommended that Father’s reunification services be terminated and that a permanent planning hearing be set. At the contested hearing, the Agency’s social worker testified that after Father left Santa Rita Jail, he was transferred to three different facilities. The social worker admitted