In re A.G. CA2/2

Filed 6/8/15 In re A.G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re A.G., a Person Coming Under the B258769 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK77034)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DANIEL C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven Klaif, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Robert R. Walmsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________________________

Daniel C., biological father of dependent child A.G., appeals a judgment denying him reunification services and declaring another man to be A.G.’s presumed father. Appellant has been incarcerated all of A.G.’s life, and has no relationship with her. On appeal, appellant argues that the court should have continued the hearing to determine presumed father status. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 352.) We affirm. FACTS Appellant, who has a lengthy criminal record, was arrested before A.G.’s birth in 2006, received a nine-year sentence for carjacking, and never saw or provided for A.G. while incarcerated. In 2009, A.G. became a dependent of the juvenile court because her mother Eileen G. (Mother) used methamphetamine; was unable to look after A.G.; and failed to make arrangements for A.G.’s care. The court sustained allegations against appellant, who failed to provide A.G. with the necessities of life. He was denied reunification services. After completing court-ordered services, including a drug rehabilitation program, Mother regained custody of A.G. In March 2014, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) intervened when Mother, while incarcerated, failed to make appropriate plans for A.G.’s care. Mother was using methamphetamines and could not provide a home for her children. Owing to Mother’s homelessness, seven-year-old A.G. had not attended school since September 2013. Mother was released from jail to a residential substance abuse rehabilitation center. DCFS filed a dependency petition in April 2014. Genetic testing shows that appellant is A.G.’s biological father. He was not present at the child’s birth; did not sign the birth certificate; did not live with Mother at conception or birth; and did not support A.G. financially or have a relationship with her. The court declared appellant to be A.G.’s biological father, and found a prima facie case for detention. A.G. was released to Mother, on condition that Mother remain in a rehabilitation program and undergo random weekly drug tests. A first amended petition alleged a risk of harm to A.G. and her siblings due to Mother’s continued drug use and drug-related convictions, despite completing a drug rehabilitation program during the prior dependency case. The amended petition made no