In re H.B. CA3

Filed 7/22/22 In re H.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----

In re H. B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C094510 Court Law.

E. B., (Super. Ct. No. 21DP00807)

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

AMADOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

E. B. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his request under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 827 to disclose and publish documents in the file of the juvenile dependency case concerning his minor daughter. Father contends he was

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

1

entitled to the documents at issue, which related to a mental health evaluation he sat for as part of the dependency case, and that the court erred because it failed to adequately weigh the relevant factors when it denied his request. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As part of the underlying juvenile dependency case, Dr. Anthony Urquiza, a psychologist, evaluated father and drafted a report about his findings. In April 2021, father filed a petition under section 827 seeking access to documents in the juvenile dependency case file. Father explained that a criminal case had been initiated against him based on the same allegations that had been made against him in the dependency case, and that he was currently charged with several counts of lewd and lascivious acts involving his minor daughter. Father provided a lengthy list of document requests, one of which asked for Dr. Urquiza’s report. The Amador County Department of Social Services (Department) objected to the request. Over the course of several hearings, the juvenile court and the parties narrowed the document requests. At the first hearing on the petition, father stated he was primarily interested in documents that were probative of the minor’s credibility or her physical condition. As to Dr. Urquiza’s report, father believed the report suggested father was “manipulating the results” of the examination because “he did so well, the doctor had trouble believing that he, in fact, was being honest.” This suggested that “he took a test and it showed that he is not attracted to children.” The prosecutor noted that father had already hired a different expert to evaluate him in the criminal case, although father stated the expert had not used the same test as Dr. Urquiza.2