L.M. v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 6/30/21 L.M. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

L.M.,

Petitioner, A162577 v.

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE (Contra Costa County COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, Super. Ct. No. J2000203) Respondent,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

In this juvenile dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, petitioner L.M. (Father) seeks extraordinary writ relief under rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court, challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.1 Father contends the court should have extended reunification

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

services and not reduced his visitation after those services were terminated. We will deny Father’s petition. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 28, 2020, the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300 as to the minor M.D., a newborn. The petition alleged that the minor was at risk in Mother’s care because Mother and the minor tested positive at the minor’s birth for amphetamines and cannabinoids. The petition also alleged that Mother failed to reunify with two half-siblings of the minor. The Bureau’s detention/jurisdiction report advised that, according to Mother, the minor was Father’s son. When contacted by the social worker, Father stated he might be the father and would like to visit the child. Father was living with his own mother, his five-year-old son, and other relatives. His criminal history included a 2019 arrest for a probation violation on a theft-related offense and two convictions for driving under the influence. At a detention hearing on March 2, 2020, the minor was detained and the Bureau was granted discretion to place him with a suitable adult relative or a non-related extended family member. The court granted Father’s request for a paternity test, along with one hour of weekly supervised visitation. The Bureau’s jurisdiction/disposition report recommended reunification services to Father if his status was raised to presumed father, and no reunification services to Mother. The report noted that Father’s genetic testing resulted in a 99.99 percent chance that he was the minor’s father. The Bureau had offered Mother and Father services early in the case, but Father had not participated because he did not understand why he needed to do so since he was a non-offending parent. Father attended only six of ten