In re R.S. CA5

Filed 5/16/16 In re R.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.S. et al., a Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY F072728 COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, (Stanislaus Super. Ct. Nos. 517190, Plaintiff and Respondent, 517191 & 517192) v. RANDY S., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. M. Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Randy S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order summarily denying his petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3881 seeking placement of his three children with their paternal grandmother. He contends the juvenile court misapplied section 361.3, the relative placement statute, and abused its discretion in denying the petition. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In January 2015, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took then three-year-old Randy, 23-month-old Robert and newborn Megan into protective custody because their parents, father and Jennifer, used methamphetamine and marijuana and endangered them. The agency placed the children together in a foster home. The juvenile court ordered the children detained at the initial hearing. Relatives immediately expressed interest in the children. Their maternal great grandmother and paternal grandfather were present at the hearing. Their maternal step- grandmother contacted the social worker that same day and expressed interest in having the children placed with her. In February 2015, the juvenile court conducted a combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. By that time, both parents were in residential drug treatment. Father’s attorney informed the court that relative placement was an issue. He advised the court that the maternal grandmother was being assessed but had a child welfare history and so was not suitable for placement. He said an aunt and an uncle had come forward separately to take the children. County counsel stated that the parents had provided the names of relatives to assess for placement and the agency sent them letters but none of them expressed an interest in placement. Father’s attorney told the court that an uncle had been trying to reach the social worker for some time. The juvenile court advised