Jose People v. Super. Ct. CA2/5

Filed 7/7/15 Jose P. v. Super. Ct. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

JOSE P., B263335 (Los Angeles County Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. CK99083)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry T. Truong, Judge. Petition denied. Gina Zaragoza for Petitioner. Office of the County Counsel, Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Jose P., the presumed father of two and one half year-old J.P. (the child), has filed a California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 extraordinary writ petition. The father seeks to set aside a dispositional order made on March 17, 2015, setting the dependency proceedings for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 parental termination rights hearing. This order followed the sustaining of a section 342 petition. The child had been removed from the father’s custody 23 months earlier. Ruling that the time for providing services had expired, the juvenile court denied further reunification services and proceeded to set a section 366.26 hearing. The father contends he was denied a contested hearing and such was an abuse of discretion. The father also argues he was not given notice the juvenile court would not order reunification services. And the father contends a further period of reunification services was not contrary to the child’s best interests.2 We deny the petition. First, the father’s contention the denial of a contested hearing was an abuse of discretion is forfeited by his failure to object in the juvenile court. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord, In re A.B. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1365-1366; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605-606.) At the March 17, 2015 hearing, the father’s counsel, Gina Zaragoza, stated she did not receive notice the juvenile court would not follow the department’s recommendation. However, Ms. Zaragoza did not request a contested hearing. Also, Ms. Zaragoza did not join in the mother’s requests to continue the matter for a contest and to file points and authorities on whether reunification services could be ordered. As father did not request a contested hearing, the contention on appeal is forfeited. Second, the denial of further reunification services did not constitute an abuse of discretion. (San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 215, 223; In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1229.)