Anthony D. v. S.C. CA1/1

Filed 3/26/21 Anthony D. v. S.C. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ANTHONY D., Petitioner, A161883 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE (San Francisco City & County CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Super. Ct. No. JD20-3304) FRANCISCO, Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

A.D. (Father) challenges an order of the San Francisco Superior Court, Juvenile Division, made January 22, 2021, in which the juvenile court declined to provide Father with reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for the minor, J.D. (Minor). Father objects to the finding that he is not entitled to reunification services. We conclude substantial evidence supports the denial of reunification services and deny Father’s petition for an extraordinary writ on the merits.

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

I. BACKGROUND Minor and her mother (Mother) tested positive for methamphetamines, cannabis, and opiates at the time of Minor’s birth. Two days later, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The juvenile court held a contested detention hearing and ordered that Minor be detained. Prior to the current petition, the Agency removed Minor’s sibling, M.D., from both parents due to general neglect. Father was offered reunification services as to M.D., which included parenting classes, participation in individual therapy, and a substance abuse assessment. Father objected to participating in therapy and did not complete the substance abuse assessment. He subsequently failed to reunify with M.D. and those services were terminated. With regard to Minor, the Agency’s disposition report recommended denying reunification services to Father because he “has not completed any services or demonstrated behavioral changes (continues to be hostile and resistant to suggestions or advice regarding parenting skills) and continues to lack protective capacities.” Specifically, the report stated Father “refused to meet with the [social worker] regarding the family’s current situation,” refused to participate in virtual visitation with Minor, and attempts to contact Father went unanswered. The Agency also noted Father has “not benefited from previous interventions” to address parenting skills. The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing. At that hearing, Father testified he was unaware of Mother’s drug use during pregnancy and he understood “it is terrible.” Father testified that he and Mother had “talked about addressing the issues,” and she was willing to move out of the family home. He also testified he was working fewer hours so