In re R.Z. CA3

Filed 8/30/22 In re R.Z. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C094471 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241006) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Father of the minor appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order entered on June 7, 2021. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 Father contends the juvenile court violated his due process rights by appointing a guardian ad litem without substantial evidence of his mental incompetence. The matter was fully briefed on April 14, 2022.

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

1

Finding sufficient evidence that father was incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the proceeding or was unable to assist counsel in a rational manner, we will affirm the juvenile court’s order. BACKGROUND On December 8, 2020, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a section 300, subdivision (b) petition on behalf of the then 10-month-old minor based on mother’s history of untreated substance abuse and father’s untreated anger management problems that impaired their judgment and ability to care for the child. The minor was detained and placed with the maternal grandmother. The juvenile court appointed counsel for mother and father and ordered supervised visitation. It also explained the process to both parents and answered father’s questions. Both mother and father agreed that mother had a drug problem and father had an anger management problem, although father claimed he naturally spoke loudly and denied cursing at and sending argumentative texts to social workers. Father began courses on parenting and anger management. At the February 1, 2021 jurisdiction hearing, father’s counsel indicated they were requesting a contested hearing or trial. Father interjected that he believed it was too early for trial and he wanted to respond to the petition first. The juvenile court explained to father that if he wanted to challenge the allegations in the petition, his options were to have a hearing with testimony, which the juvenile court called a trial, or a hearing with argument but no testimony. Father continued to assert that he wanted to contest the allegations, he did not want a trial, and no one was explaining the process to him. The juvenile court asked if they could go forward that day, but father’s counsel said she understood that father had additional evidence he wanted to present, which she told father needed to be presented at a trial, so they were not prepared to go forward that day. The trial court scheduled another hearing to determine whether the matter would be set for a contested jurisdiction hearing.