In re C.M. CA2/2

Filed 2/11/16 In re C.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.M., a Person Coming Under the B260784 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK80972) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.

TRAVIS H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Amy Pellman, Judge. Affirmed.

Darlene Azevedo Kelly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Travis H. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying father’s motion seeking to be granted presumed father status. Father argues that the trial court erred in determining that father did not qualify as a presumed father under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d). We find no error in the trial court’s ruling, therefore we affirm. COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 11, 2014, the juvenile court ordered C.M., who was then two months old, detained from parental custody and placed in the care of respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) because both parents were incarcerated and there was no relative available who could immediately take placement of the child.1 The petition, filed on behalf of C.M. pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, alleged that both mother and father had histories of drug abuse, and that the child had been placed in a detrimental and endangering situation when hypodermic needles were left in the family vehicle in reach of the child. Father and Brittany M. (mother) were present in court at the next hearing on July 14, 2014.2 Father and mother were appointed counsel. The court asked father if he had ever lived with the child, and if his name was on the birth certificate. Father answered “no” to both questions. However, he stated that there was no question that he was the child’s father. The court found that father was the child’s alleged natural father, and ordered that he have supervised visits three times per week. The child was detained with the maternal grandmother. The jurisdictional hearing was held on August 20, 2014. Mother appeared but father did not. Mother pled no contest, and the petition was sustained. On September 26, 2014, father’s counsel filed a motion requesting that father be found to be the child’s presumed father. On October 2, 2014, the court continued the