E.W. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 11/30/20 E.W. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

E.W., F081747 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 19JP-00049-A) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. E.W., pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Maile C. Dunlap, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P.J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Petitioner E.W. (father), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile court’s orders terminating his reunification services at a 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1))1 in September 2020 and setting a section 366.26 hearing on January 6, 2021, as to his now seven-year-old son by the same name (E.W.). Father contends the juvenile court failed to consider the restrictions imposed by COVID-19 in finding he was provided reasonable reunification services by the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency). Therefore, its findings and orders are error. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Dependency proceedings were initiated in April 2019 after E.W.’s former foster mother, S.R., petitioned for probate guardianship of then five-year-old E.W. In her moving papers, she alleged father had a problem with alcohol and drugs and was homeless and unemployed. The probate court asked the agency to investigate. On April 12, 2019, an agency social worker went to the home of Robert G. and Margie G., the paternal grandparents, where father and E.W. resided. Several days before her visit, the agency received a report that Robert struck E.W. and his half sibling. Margie said father was no longer living in her home, explaining he was an alcoholic and damaged their property. She suspected he was also using drugs. Robert said father slept all day while living with them and came home drunk. Margie said father was verbally abusive to E.W., referring to E.W. as “ ‘bit** and f*****,’ ” and hit and pushed him. Margie denied E.W. was physically abused but said he did not follow the house rules and his behavior was challenging. She and Robert were not physically and financially able to care for him. Father did not want to address the allegations in a telephone conversation with the social worker. Although he was difficult to understand and his speech was slurred, he