Patrick H. v. Super. Ct. CA21/1

Filed 5/16/13 Patrick H. v. Super. Ct. CA21/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

PATRICK H., et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, Respondent, MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT A137339 OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-JVSQ-11-16333-01) Real Parties in Interest.

Patrick H. (Father) and Alicia E. (Mother) seek extraordinary relief from orders of the Mendocino County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, entered November 26, 2012, which terminated Father’s reunification services at the conclusion of the 12-month permanency hearing, and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select a permanent plan for their child A.H., born September 2010.1 Father contends the juvenile court erred in terminating his services. Mother, whose services were previously terminated, has submitted a petition that raises no arguably meritorious issues. We conclude substantial evidence supports the finding underlying the termination

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

of Father’s services, and deny on the merits both Father’s and Mother’s petitions for extraordinary writ.2 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and earlier procedural history, to the point of the six-month review hearing, are set out in detail in the Mother’s prior appeal from the dispositional orders entered in December of 2011 (In re A.H. (Dec. 12, 2012, A134387) [nonpub. opn.]), and in Mother’s second appeal—currently pending before this court—from orders entered at the conclusion of the six-month hearing in June 2012 (In re A.H. (A135981).) At the conclusion of the six-month review hearing on June 26, 2012, the juvenile court adhered to the determinations of the Round Valley Tribal Council, expressed in a letter to the court and resolutions, to decline to accept jurisdiction of the case and authorize alteration of preferences mandated by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to establish a long- term guardianship of A.H. with “Talisha and Simon M.,” with the “understanding that no adoption will be done.” The court also adopted the findings in the six-month review report filed by the Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency). Family reunification services to Mother were terminated; services to Father were continued to the 12-month hearing, as were the parents’ visitation rights. In July 2012, Father temporarily separated his living arrangement from the Mother and relocated from Covelo to Ukiah. At his request his case plan was amended to specify a transfer of some of his services from Yuki Trails to Consolidated Tribal Health. The 12-month report, filed by the Agency on October 1, 2012, indicated that the Father consistently engaged in unsupervised visitation with the child, and during the visits demonstrated appropriate parenting skills. The child exhibited a strong attachment to her Father during visitation. On one occasion, however, the child smelled of marijuana following a visit with the Father. During another visit, he engaged in a heated argument and yelled at the Mother in front of the child and others. The Father participated in a