In re E.M. CA6

Filed 12/2/15 In re E.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re E.M., a Person Coming Under the H042137 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-14-JD22456)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Father of one-year-old E.M., appeals the juvenile court’s visitation order following the Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing. He asserts the juvenile court erred in ordering that E.M. have no visitation with Father until he was no longer incarcerated.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In March 2014, when E.M. was three-months old, she was taken into protective custody by the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department). When she was born, E.M. tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother told the social worker from the Department that Father was E.M.’s biological father, and that he had been in jail since August 2013. Mother was offered and accepted family reunification services. Mother did not participate in drug treatment and continued to use illegal drugs. The Department filed a dependency petition alleging Mother’s drug abuse, and that Father’s whereabouts were unknown. The juvenile court ordered E.M. detained on March 24, 2014. The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report dated April 14, 2014 recommended that E.M. be made a dependent of the court and that Mother receive reunification services. On June 4, 2014, at the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court sustained the Department’s petition and ordered reunification services for Mother. The six month review report recommended that Mother’s reunification services be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. E.M. was in the care of her great- aunt. In September 2014, the Department determined that Father was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. One of the paternal family members had seen the Mother, and the paternal grandmother called the social worker. The grandmother told the social worker that Father would be released from prison in January 2015. The grandmother said they wanted to be involved in E.M.’s life if Father was the father. The court held the six-month review hearing on November 19, 2014. Father was still incarcerated, but was represented by counsel who waived his appearance. The court terminated Mother’s reunification services and ordered paternity testing for F.A.