In re A.R. CA3

Filed 8/10/16 In re A.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C080588 Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. J06267) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant, V.R., an alleged father who claims to be the biological father of minor A.R., appeals the denial of his petition to vacate all the orders entered in this case, including the termination of parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388.)1 He contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition. We disagree and affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND A.R., the minor in this case, was detained in March 2013, when she was approximately a year old, due to mother’s extensive history of substance abuse, primarily alcohol, which had resulted in the removal of and termination of services for three of the minor’s half siblings, and the termination of parental rights to a fourth half sibling. Mother identified K.R., the father of the minor’s older half siblings, as the father, although she indicated she was not certain he was the minor’s biological father. K.R., who had signed a declaration of paternity, took a DNA test that revealed he was not the biological father and indicated he was going to file a motion to set aside paternity. Mother also informed the social worker that R.S. was her boyfriend, and he had assumed fatherly responsibilities for the minor. Mother did not identify appellant as a father. The juvenile court found K.R. to be the presumed father on April 15, 2013. K.R. did not want to participate in reunification services. The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent child of the court and both parents were bypassed for reunification services. Notice of the upcoming section 366.26 hearing to unknown and alleged fathers of the minor was published in the newspaper from March 18, 2014, to April 8, 2014. The section 366.26 hearing was continued numerous times, finally taking place on February 6, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parental rights of the mother, presumed father, the alleged father, and all unknown fathers to A.R. were terminated.2 On July 29, 2015, after parental rights were terminated, appellant, by way of a section 388 petition, asked the juvenile court to vacate all its orders in this case, including its February 6, 2015, order terminating parental rights. He claimed he had been unable to locate mother since she gave birth and was wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to participate in the dependency proceedings. The juvenile court indicated that it reviewed