In re D.F. CA5

Filed 4/8/16 In re D.F. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re D.F. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY F072387 COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, (Stanislaus Super. Ct. No. 517071) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION BRYAN S., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Detjen, J.

Bryan S. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 as to his now 21-month-old son, D.F. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) Father submitted a letter in which he asks for a chance to prove that he can be a father to D.F. He states he is willing to sign his rights over to his sister in Iowa (who he identifies) until he is ready to be a father. We conclude father failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In July 2014, newborn D.F. and his mother (“the mother”) tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. The Stanislaus County Community Service Agency (agency) placed a protective hold on D.F. because of his mother’s history of methamphetamine use. The agency placed D.F. in foster care. In October 2014, the juvenile court conducted the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. The mother did not appear. She had been arrested for burglary. The court adjudged D.F. a dependent child and ordered reunification services for mother. The court denied father reunification services because he was an alleged father and not entitled to them. He was also incarcerated. In November 2014, the agency received the results of paternity testing which revealed that father could not be excluded as D.F.’s biological father. In January 2015,