Steven F. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2

Filed 6/25/15 Steven F. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

STEVEN F., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NAPA A144038 COUNTY, (Napa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JV17619) NAPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Steven F. is the presumed father of infant F. P.1 In December 2013, the Napa County Juvenile Court ordered the child detained, that is, removed from petitioner’s custody. The following month, the court sustained the allegations of a petition filed by Real Party in Interest Napa County Department of Social Services (Department) in which it was alleged that F. P. qualified as a dependent child within the meaning of subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 The gist of the

1 The minor’s mother was involved at all stages of the dependency, but is not a party to this proceeding. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to this code.

1

allegations was that “the minor sustained injuries as the result of the father physically abusing him”; “[t]he father did not seek out medical care for the minor, despite the minor having obvious and observable injuries to his face and head”; and “the father,” who was “currently incarcerated at NCDC [Napa County Department of Corrections],” “uses marijuana and alcohol to the point of significant impairment.” There is no reporter’s transcript of the jurisdictional hearing, but the minutes and formal jurisdictional order make it clear that petitioner was present, did not contest the petition, and was informed of the dates for the dispositional hearing. The same is largely true for the unreported dispositional hearing. Petitioner is described as “present in custody,” and with having been provided with “copies of reports.” The minor was declared to be a dependent child, his placement entrusted to the Department. The Department’s report informed the court that “the father was arrested for . . . child cruelty; . . . inflicting injury upon a child; [and] battery with serious bodily injury” and “is currently incarcerated related to these charges,” and for these reasons the Department recommended that that he be denied reunification services, in accordance with section 361.5, subdivision and (b)(6) and (c).3 The court accepted this recommendation, and the recommendation that the mother receive reunification services. Also, again as recommended by the Department, the court concluded: “Visitation between the child and the father would be detrimental to the best interest of the child therefore, no visitation is ordered at this time.” The same is also true for the unreported six-month review hearing. Again, the minutes recited that petitioner was “present in custody,” and the formal order stated he 3 “Reunification services need not be provided to a parent . . . when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] [t]he child has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result of . . . the infliction of severe physical harm to the child, . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent . . . .” (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6).) “The court shall not order reunification services for a parent . . . described in paragraph . . . (6) . . . of subdivision (b) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c).)