Oscar M. v. Superior Court CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 5, 2013 No. F066178Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court properly denied reunification services to an incarcerated parent because providing such services would be detrimental to the child, given the child's age, the lack of a parent-child bond, and the parent's inability to reunify within the statutory time frame.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services to an incarcerated parent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Oscar was not denied reunification services merely because he was incarcerated but because to offer him services would be detrimental to his son.”

“In this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports a finding that services would be detrimental.”

Filed 3/5/13 Oscar M. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

OSCAR M., Petitioner, F066178 v. (Super. Ct. No. 516444 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Oscar M., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

The juvenile court denied petitioner Oscar M. reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1)1 at a contested dispositional hearing in November 2012 as to his then one-month-old son because Oscar was incarcerated, serving a sentence in excess of the statutory reunification period. The juvenile court also set a section 366.26 hearing. Oscar challenges the juvenile court’s denial of services and setting orders in propria persona by filing an extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) He contends his incarceration should not be a bar to reunification. We disagree and deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In October 2012, Oscar’s girlfriend, Justina, gave birth to his son, the subject of this writ petition.2 Justina and the baby tested positive for methamphetamine. Oscar was incarcerated and scheduled to be released in March 2014. The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) was notified and a social worker interviewed Justina and Oscar. Justina stated she had been using methamphetamine for a long time, including during her pregnancy and was unprepared to care for the baby. Oscar also admitted to using drugs for a long time. In addition, he had an extensive criminal history, including vehicle theft, attempting to escape from jail, possession of controlled substances, violation of parole, and grand theft. The agency filed a dependency petition on the baby’s behalf and the juvenile court ordered him detained. The juvenile court continued the matter to November 2012 for a

Oscar M. v. Superior Court CA5

AI Brief

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief