In re J.D. CA1/3

Filed 10/6/21 In re J.D. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re J.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN and FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A161418

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1900524) A.D., Defendant and Appellant.

A.D. (father) appeals from an October 7, 2020 juvenile court order that summarily denied his Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition for six months of reunification services and in-person visits with his son J.D. The sole contention on appeal is that the section 388 petition contained sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The appeal is dismissed as it has been rendered moot due to subsequent proceedings in the juvenile court.

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

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2019, respondent Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the agency) removed then six-year-old J.D. from the care of his parents, who co-parented the child along with the child’s paternal cousins; mother is the legal guardian of the cousins, two brothers then aged six and twelve. All of the children lived primarily with father and on weekends J.D. stayed (and the cousins periodically stayed) with mother. The agency’s section 300 petition alleged both parents had put J.D. at substantial risk of physical harm and neglect. The allegations were based on father’s use of corporal punishment to discipline the cousins, causing physical injuries, and on mother’s acquiescence to J.D. living with father while he inflicted such corporal punishment. Following the agency’s intervention, father was incarcerated on felony charges for aggravated mayhem, torture, and child cruelty based on his physical abuse of the cousins. On August 22, 2019, the juvenile court sustained the petition, finding J.D. a person described in section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and finding true the allegations as to both parents. At the dispositional hearing on October 16, 2019, the juvenile court declared J.D. a dependent of the court after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child’s physical or emotional well-being was or would be in substantial danger if returned to his parents’ physical custody. The juvenile court granted mother reunification services including supervised visits but denied the same to father. The court ruled that, pursuant to section 361.5(b)(10), father would not be granted reunification services because there was clear and convincing evidence that in a prior dependency concerning J.D.’s older paternal half- sibling father had failed to reunify with that child after being offered reunification services to address his physical abuse of that child, and father