L.People v. Superior Court CA6

Filed 5/17/16 L.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

L.P., No. H043347 (Monterey County Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. J48572)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner L.P. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing for July 2016. He claims that the court’s ruling was erroneous because he had not been provided with reasonable reunification services. We reject his contention and deny his petition.

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

I. Background Three-year-old A.P. (the child) was taken into protective custody on June 25, 2015 after E.H. (mother), a methamphetamine addict, left the child and the child’s one-year-old half brother in a home with a mentally ill adult who was not even able to care for herself. The home in which the children had been left was unsafe and dirty and lacked sufficient food. The children were dirty, and there were no diapers in the home. The child had bruises and numerous cigarette burns on his body. He was also suffering from severe developmental delays. After the children were taken into protective custody, mother was arrested on outstanding warrants for previous child endangerment convictions, and she was also charged with a new count of child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).) Father, who had a history of substance abuse, had not been a significant presence in the child’s life since the child was a few months old. He had visited the child occasionally thereafter. Father had been convicted of inflicting corporal injury on mother, and there was a current restraining order protecting mother from father. Father was homeless and on probation in Santa Clara County for a burglary conviction. He had been incarcerated as a teenager for sexually abusing his sister. The Department filed a section 300 petition asking the court to take jurisdiction over the child. Although father was notified of the June 30, 2015 detention hearing, father did not appear at the hearing. The court set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing for August 11, 2015. By the time of the August 11 hearing, mother had been released from custody. Father had been having weekly one-hour visits with the child, and the visits were appropriate. Father did not appear at the August 11 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, which the court noted “doesn’t bode well for reunification, based on what’s going on.” The court took jurisdiction over the child, removed him from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for both parents.