In re L.P. CA3

Filed 3/12/15 In re L.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re L.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C077091 Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. J06757) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

H.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Hector P. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order granting him reunification services as the biological father of minor L.P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.) He contends for the first time on appeal that the juvenile court erred in finding him L.P.’s biological father, claiming that he should have been designated her

1

presumed father. We conclude his contention is forfeited; therefore, we affirm the dispositional orders of the juvenile court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 11, 2014, San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a petition as to L.P. (aged 22 months) and her half brother. The Agency named father in the petition as the presumed father of L.P. It did not allege any facts supporting that designation. The petition listed a different address for father than for the biological mother of both minors. The details of the allegations in the petition are not relevant to our determination on this appeal. It suffices to say that the petition alleged that mother and father had drug problems, a history of domestic violence, and other behavior problems and associations that put the minors at risk. At the initial hearing on April 14, 2014, the juvenile court ordered the minors detained. Father identified himself as L.P.’s father in response to the court’s question and responded, “I believe so” when asked if he was on her birth certificate (which he was). The court found that father is L.P.’s biological father, and appointed counsel for him. Mother’s counsel requested the placement of the minors with their respective paternal grandmothers. County counsel informed the court that father “apparently” lived with the paternal grandparents; the paternal grandmother stated that “social services” had said father could not stay with them because mother had a restraining order against father and the grandparents’ home was close to mother’s. She claimed that father had recently moved out. The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed June 23, 2014, stated that father had not maintained contact with the Agency. He had not visited the minor or asked for placement. His current circumstances and living arrangements were unknown; he had not provided the Agency with any address. He had made no progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes leading to the minor’s removal. Nevertheless, the Agency,