S.W. v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 7/28/21 S.W. v. Superior Court CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

S.W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A162611 FRANCISCO COUNTY, (San Francisco County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JD20-3119) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner S.W. (Father) seeks extraordinary relief from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.21, subd. (e))1 to terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing for his now 15-month-old son, M.W. (Minor). Father contends that insufficient evidence supports the court’s (1) finding of substantial risk of detriment to Minor; (2) termination of reunification services for Father; and (3) finding that reasonable reunification services were provided to Father. (§ 366.21 subds. (e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(8).) We deny the petition and request for a stay of the section 366.26 hearing.

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

BACKGROUND A. In May 2020, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) received a referral for newborn Minor after his mother, L.W. (Mother),2 tested positive for methamphetamines at the time of his birth. The Agency filed a section 300 petition alleging Minor was at substantial risk of harm due to Mother’s substance abuse issues, Mother’s mental health issues, Father’s substance abuse issues, and domestic violence between Mother and Father. It also alleged Minor was at risk of further neglect because Mother refused the baby treatment: after doctors noticed signs of withdrawal, she did not allow the doctors to complete any newborn screenings, assess the baby for withdrawal, or take him to the neonatal intensive care unit. The social worker reported that she had spoken with both Mother and Father at the hospital, and Father had denied using drugs. Father also denied that Minor was experiencing any withdrawal symptoms, stating that Minor was shaking because he had been startled after something was dropped in the room. At the contested detention hearing, the court found a prima facie case had been made that Minor came within section 300, there was a substantial danger to Minor’s physical health, and there were no reasonable means to protect his health absent removal; it ordered Minor detained. The court also provided the Agency with the authorization to consent to medical care on behalf of Minor. In its June 10, 2020 report, the Agency stated that Father was incarcerated in jail with no anticipated release date on various charges, including possession for sale of cocaine base, second degree robbery, and