Jose E. v. Superior Court CA6

California Court of Appeal Apr 21, 2016 No. H043293Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a biological father is not entitled to reunification services as a matter of right and that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that providing such services would not benefit the child. Although the juvenile court made an unsupported finding regarding a violent felony, the denial of services was independently justified by the court's discretionary determination regarding the child's best interests.

Issues

Whether a biological father is entitled to reunification services as a matter of right upon a declaration of paternity.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that reunification services would not benefit the child.
Whether the juvenile court's erroneous written finding regarding a violent felony conviction requires reversal of the order denying services.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although a presumed father is entitled to reunification services, a biological father is not entitled to reunification services but may be afforded services in the juvenile court’s discretion only if the court “determines that the services will benefit the child.””

“The juvenile court expressly found that the child would not benefit from granting services to Jose because six months would not be enough time for him to reunify with the child.”

“Since there is no indication that the court’s subsequent erroneous written finding (in orders prepared by the Department) played any role in the court’s discretionary decision at the hearing, we are satisfied that the court’s denial of reunification services to Jose was based solely on the lack of benefit to the child.”

Filed 4/21/16 Jose E. v. Superior Court CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOSE E., No. H043293 (Monterey County Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. J48283)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent;

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Jose E. challenges by writ petition the juvenile court’s February 2016 order denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 hearing for June 2016. He claims that the court erred in finding that one- year-old M.L. (the child) would not benefit from a grant of reunification services to him. We reject his contention and deny his petition.

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

I. Background The child was born in late December 2014 to A.L. (the mother). In January 2015, the Monterey County Department of Social Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition asking the court to take dependency jurisdiction over the child. The child was not detained; she continued to reside with the mother, who entered a residential drug treatment program after the Department learned that she had given birth to the child. The mother had an extensive child welfare history arising largely from her substance abuse, and she did not have custody of any of her five older children. The mother named Jose as the alleged father of the child. Jose was incarcerated when the child was born and remained incarcerated when the petition was filed. He had been sentenced in September 2014 to 28 months in jail, and he had an extensive criminal history, including convictions for burglary, receiving stolen property, and possession of a controlled substance. Jose sought a paternity test, and the court ordered one. On March 11, 2015, paternity testing was conducted, and it established that Jose was the child’s biological father. Jose was present in custody at the uncontested March 24, 2015 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. He informed the Department at the hearing that he might be released in July 2015 and wanted to reunify with the child. The court took jurisdiction over the child, declared Jose to be the child’s biological father, ordered services for Jose, and continued the child’s placement with the mother with family maintenance services. The court ordered no visitation between Jose and the child until he could be assessed by the Department. At a May 2015 review hearing, Jose’s trial counsel told the Department that Jose hoped to be released soon, and she explained that she had told him “that he needed to contact the social worker right away and comply with the case plan, so he can have visits

Jose E. v. Superior Court CA6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. Disposition The petition is denied.

AI Brief