In re A.L. CA2/8

Filed 4/19/13 In re A.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the B244509 Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK46624) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elizabeth Kim, Referee. Affirmed.

Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

__________________________

Appellant J.L. (father) appeals from the October 1, 2012 order denying his request that his dependent daughter, A.L., be removed from foster care and placed with father’s childhood friend, T.D. Father contends the juvenile court erred in finding that T.D. was not a “nonrelative extended family member” (NREFM) within the meaning of the Welfare and Institutions Code.1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant was incarcerated when two-day-old A.L. was detained in February 2012, after mother tested positive for cocaine. Appellant was found to be A.L.’s presumed father. A.L. was four days old when she was placed with non-relative caregivers B.F. and S.F. (the foster parents). As sustained by the juvenile court following a March 19 jurisdictional hearing, paragraph b-1 of the section 300 petition alleged that A.L. had suffered or there was a substantial risk she would suffer serious physical harm or illness because mother had a long history of illegal drug use, was currently using illicit drugs, had tested positive for cocaine while pregnant with A.L., and had failed to reunify with several other children. The petition also alleged father knew or should have known about mother’s drug use and failed to protect A.L. Additional allegations alleged pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) were dismissed.2 Father told the social worker that he intended to do everything he could to regain custody of A.L. A paternal aunt expressed interest in having A.L. placed with her. But mother was adamantly opposed to placement with the paternal aunt, whom mother claimed was a current drug abuser. Mother wanted A.L. placed with a maternal aunt.