In re R.A. CA3

Filed 8/10/22 In re R.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095649 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241632) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARL S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Carl S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders removing toddler R.A. (minor) from parental custody and bypassing father for reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(16).)1 Father contends the juvenile

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

1

court’s finding that he was required to register as a sex offender is not supported by substantial evidence and claims the juvenile court erred in finding reunification was not in the minor’s best interest. Disagreeing, we affirm the orders. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2021, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the (then) two-year- old minor alleging the minor was at substantial risk of harm due to mother’s untreated substance abuse; he was detained and placed in foster care. At the time of the minor’s detention, father was incarcerated. He reported to the Department that he had been incarcerated for “ ‘around four months.’ ” On December 2, 2021, the Department filed its jurisdiction/disposition report. As relevant here, the report set forth father’s criminal record, which extended from 1982 and included a 1983 conviction for sexual battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4), as well as 10 convictions for failing to register as a sex offender (id., § 290). The report noted the Department had requested but not yet obtained a certified record for the 1983 conviction. The Department had tried to locate father on the Megan’s Law sex offender registry but could not. The Department opined there would be “substantial danger to the physical health, safety, and protection or emotional well-being of the” minor if father were given custody. In support of this conclusion, the Department noted father’s criminal history and his current incarceration, as well as that father had been an “infrequent presence” in the minor’s life and the two shared no bond. The Department recommended father be bypassed for services because he was incarcerated with no release date (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1)) and was required to register as a sex offender (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(16)). It opined that services were not in the minor’s best interest because--given father’s lengthy criminal history and substance abuse problem--