In re S.T. CA1/1

Filed 6/11/15 In re S.T. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re S.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MARIN COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142767 v. (Marin County J.L., Super. Ct. No. JV25907a) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION J.L., the father of S.T., (Father) appeals from a dispositional order denying him reunification services under the bypass provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5.1 He maintains no substantial evidence supports the court’s denial of reunification services. We disagree, and affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND We set forth only those facts relevant to the issue Father raises on appeal. The underlying petition was filed in April 2014, alleging S.T.’s mother failed to provide him and his half siblings with adequate food, clothing and medical treatment due

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

1

to her mental illness or substance abuse. At the time, S.T.’s father was incarcerated in the Marin County Jail.2 S.T., born in 2007, was first detained when he was one year old after his mother was arrested for child endangerment. At that time, Marin County Health and Human Services (Department) attempted to “engage [Father] in visiting,” but he never “followed through with any visits while [S.T.] was in foster care, or after [his] return to his mother’s care. The Department interviewed Father in regard to the instant petition, and reported Father “provided inconsistent and confusing statements” regarding his contact with S.T. Father claimed to have last seen S.T. in September or October 2013, but also reported he had not seen S.T. since his birth. Following an interview with Father on March 27, the Department reported he was “vague about how much time he had spent with [S.T.] in his lifetime, or what kind of relationship they had, and refused to answer related questions in detail.” Father was “markedly detached” and had a “flat affect.” About two weeks later, the Department attempted to interview him again in the county jail, but Father stated he did “ ‘not want to talk at this time.’ ” He then walked out of the interview. The Department interviewed S.T., who could not remember the last time he saw Father or what he looked like. S.T. told a social worker: “ ‘I don’t have a dad. . . . He just didn’t die. . . . He lives far away.’ ” S.T.’s mother reported Father “kidnapped” S.T. from her home in August 2013. S.T.’s half brother recalled that S.T. spent the night at Father’s home once “about one year ago,” but said S.T. did not want to go back. Father was found “ ‘incompetent’ to stand trial . . . and will remain at the Marin County Jail until a bed opens up at Napa State hospital.” The Marin County District Attorney’s office reported “ ‘The length of [Father’s] stay in the hospital is dependent on his cooperation with treatment and taking prescribed medication and his stay could be