In re Y.G. CA3

Filed 12/11/20 In re Y.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Y.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C089508 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD239761, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD239762, JD239763)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E.G., father of the minors (father), appeals from the juvenile court’s order issuing a two-year restraining order against him. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 213.5, 304, 395.)1 Finding father forfeited his claim, we will affirm the juvenile court’s order.

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

1

BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history is unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal. Suffice it to say that, at the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 10, 2019, the juvenile court sustained an amended dependency petition filed by the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services (Department) pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c) as to the three minors, all of whom were under the age of four. Finding there was a substantial danger to the minors’ well-being if returned to father’s care and no reasonable means of protecting them in lieu of removal, the court ordered the minors placed with mother in a confidential placement, with supervised visitation for father. After exercising jurisdiction over the minors, the court stated, “The Court’s inclination is to issue a restraining order sua sponte to [section] 304, but I’ll hear from parties concerning the restraining order and possible length of the restraining order.” The Department and minors’ counsel agreed with the issuance of a restraining order and submitted. Father’s counsel stated as follows: “I would object to a restraining order being issued against the father. I don’t know if the Court intends on including the children and the mother in his restraining order, but I don’t think that there’s any evidence that since the father became aware of the situation regarding CPS that he has violated any court orders or sought to see the children when the Court has said it’s not appropriate or sought out any contact with the mother. So I don’t believe that it’s necessary. He’s willing to stay away from the mother and the children. He’s willing to follow the Court’s orders. I don’t think that there’s any evidence that he hasn’t done that at this point.” Mother also agreed to issuance of a restraining order and, when the court inquired as to possible duration, mother’s counsel conferred with mother and stated: “She’s [mother] not sure. I know typically they’re three years. And they could be modified, you know, depending on the father’s progress. She just wants to make sure