In re P.W. CA5

Filed 8/19/16 In re P.W. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F073283 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JV7454 & JV7455) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION D.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Beth A. Melvin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Cody M. Nesper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

In this juvenile dependency case, two girls, P.W. and D.W., were removed from the custody of their parents, Daniel F. (father) and L.F. (mother). After reunification efforts failed, the juvenile court found the children likely to be adopted and entered an order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Father appeals, challenging the termination of his parental rights as to both girls. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the children were likely to be adopted. We agree, reverse the juvenile court’s order, and remand for the juvenile court to hold a new hearing under section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the children. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Dependency proceedings were initiated in March 2014 when the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) took then five-year-old P.W. and three-year-old D.F. into protective custody after mother struck P.W., causing bruising on her buttocks. Father denied knowing that mother injured P.W. but knew she severely punished the children and he did not intervene. The responding social worker noted that both children were developmentally delayed. Father and mother struggled with mental health problems. Mother suffered from depression and was prescribed an antidepressant but did not take it regularly. She stopped taking it about a month before the children were removed. Father suffered from post-traumatic cognitive disorder as a result of two serious brain injuries he sustained at the ages of nine and 19. He reported having problems with impulse control which he attributed to the second brain injury. He also reported using marijuana medicinally to control the pain associated with various medical conditions. Shortly after the children were taken into protective custody, father forced mother to leave the family home. He blamed her for the children’s removal.