In re H.H. CA1/5

Filed 8/26/20 In re H.H. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

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

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A159078 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco County R.H., Super. Ct. No. JD17-3179) Defendant and Appellant.

In this dependency action, R.H. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights over his son, H.H. (Minor). We affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2017, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition on behalf of Minor, then four years old. Minor was detained in August and placed in foster care.

1All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

According to initial Agency reports, the apartment Father and Minor shared was cluttered and filthy and on multiple occasions Minor was visibly dirty and wearing no clothes.2 Minor was exhibiting significant developmental delays, but Father failed to follow up on multiple appointments and referrals. Father admitted to having a substance abuse problem and told the Agency “most of the time he is completely overwhelmed with parenting [Minor].” The Agency social worker stated Father was “a very loving father” and “loves [Minor] to death.” In September, Father submitted to an amended petition and the juvenile court ordered reunification services. In March 2018, the Agency reported that Minor had recently been diagnosed as autistic and had developmental and language delays. Father had weekly supervised visits that he attended inconsistently, apparently due to problems with his phone and health issues. When he did attend visits, he was appropriate. Father was participating in individual therapy and outpatient drug treatment, but had left a residential program early and had multiple positive drug tests. In June, the juvenile court ordered six additional months of services. In August 2018, the Agency reported that during supervised visits and therapeutic visits, Father was appropriate with Minor, attuned to Minor’s needs, and able to comfort Minor and provide affection and attention. The Agency social worker noted, “No[] one is doubting how much [Father] loves and cares about [Minor], and vice-versa . . . .” However, Father’s attendance continued to be inconsistent and when he missed visits, as he did many times, Minor became extremely upset and threw tantrums that could last