In re Z.S. CA3

Filed 2/24/22 In re Z.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C094018 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD239588, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD239589)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DENNIS S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Father, Dennis S., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating dependency jurisdiction, awarding mother sole legal and physical custody of the minors, issuing a no- contact order, and denying visitation with the minors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 364, 395; further unspecified statutory references are to this code.) He contends there is not sufficient evidence to support the no-contact order denying him visitation. We agree and reverse the order.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In early 2019, the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition alleging the children, Z.S. and P.N., were at substantial risk of harm due to mother’s untreated mental health condition and substance abuse problems. The children were placed into protective custody and removed from mother’s home. Almost six-year-old P.N. was placed with mother’s stepaunt and two-year-old Z.S. was placed with his father, Dennis S. In the February 2019 jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker noted Z.S. was fully acclimated and bonded with father, and that father had provided care and lived with Z.S. since his birth. Father had also provided Z.S. stable housing since the initial hearing in these proceedings. Initially P.N.’s father was unknown. Later in the proceedings, the juvenile court found Dennis S. to be P.N.’s presumed father. P.N. and Dennis S. also identified as father and son. The juvenile court found the allegations of the section 300 petition true. In April 2019, the Department filed a section 342 petition alleging father had left Z.S. with an inappropriate caregiver, failed to provide appropriate medical care, and failed to comply with court ordered drug testing. Z.S. was removed from father. Ultimately, the children were placed with mother’s stepfather. Mother and father were provided reunification services. Father was ordered to submit to alcohol and drug testing and parenting classes. Father was granted visitation with Z.S. After being declared P.N.’s presumed father, he was also granted visitation with P.N. Both father and the Department indicated there had been communication problems in getting his visits scheduled, arranging for drug testing that did not conflict with his work schedule, and starting his parenting classes. As of November 2019, approximately six months after father was granted visitation with both children and offered reunification services, he had completed nine