In re H.S. CA3

Filed 9/1/16 In re H.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re H.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C081010 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD235112) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

R.S., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at the 12-month review hearing terminating his reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (f), 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Father contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that he was provided reasonable services. We affirm.

1

FACTS The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition in August 2014 alleging the three-year-old, non-verbal autistic minor, H.S., was at risk of sexual abuse because father molested the minor’s nine-year-old half sibling and the mother knew or should have known of the abuse and failed to protect the half sibling. The court sustained the petition, removed the minor from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for the parents. The judgment was affirmed on appeal in case number C078319. The six-month review report filed in June 2015 recommended further reunification services for the parents. Both parents had completed, or were near completing, the plan requirements. Mother’s therapist did not recommend further counseling, stating mother had met the requirements of non-offending counseling. Mother had disclosed in therapy that she believed the half sibling had been sexually abused, but not by the father of the minor. Father’s therapist also did not recommend further sessions. The therapist said father was participating in the sessions but denied sexual abuse of the half sibling. “[B]ased on the father’s personality and participation during sessions,” the therapist did not think the allegations of sexual abuse were true. The therapist’s subsequent report said: “Previously it was stated that we cannot know if [father] is a perpetrator without further assessments which were not requested. We have no evidence to suggest he sexually abused his children.” The social worker was concerned that the therapists supported the parents in their continued denials that the half sibling was sexually abused by father, despite the fact that the allegations were sustained by the court, and concluded the parents were not benefiting from services. At the review hearing, the court ordered further services and continued the minor in foster care. The orders were affirmed on appeal in case number C079602. The October 2015 report for the 12-month review hearing recommended termination of services for both parents. H.S. continued to receive specialized services to