Shawn S. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 6/24/13 Shawn s. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SHAWN S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, A138265 Respondent; HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Humboldt County HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES et al., Super. Ct. No. JV040182)

Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Shawn S. (Father) is the father of Ethan S. (now age 11). Ethan was the subject of a September 2004 dependency petition, based on an allegation of caretaker absence or incapacity. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (g).)2 At the time, Father was unable to provide for his son because he was participating in a residential drug treatment program. Ethan was found to be a dependent of the court in November 2004. Father was offered

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 (a ―memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion‖ is appropriate when an appeal ―rais[es] factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule‖). (§ 8.1(3).) 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

reunification services with a case plan that required him to complete his inpatient substance abuse program and follow all recommendations for aftercare. Father successfully completed his treatment program and the dependency was terminated in February 2006. On June 3, 2011, a second dependency petition was filed alleging that Father was frequently consuming alcohol in the home to the point of passing out. He had also physically abused Ethan when he was drunk. At the jurisdiction hearing held on July 28, 2011, the juvenile court sustained the petition as amended. The jurisdiction report filed by the Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services (Department) concluded that Father ―has unaddressed alcohol issues that render him unable or unwilling to provide adequate care for his son.‖ A supplemental report stated that Father had been arrested on July 12, 2011, and charged with stealing a bottle of tequila from a supermarket. At the time of his arrest, he had another individual‘s prescription medication in his pocket. At the uncontested disposition hearing, held on August 23, 2011, Ethan was again declared a dependent of the juvenile court. The court found Father‘s unaddressed substance abuse issues rendered him unable to provide regular care or supervision for the child. Reunification services were ordered for Father. At the six-month status review hearing, the Department reported that Ethan was doing well in his placement in the home of his paternal grandfather. Father had completed a parenting class and was participating in the Alcohol and Other Drugs program (AOD). He had approximately three months left of a 52-week alcohol-abuse program called HART. He had served his jail time for the shoplifting charge and had completed his community service. He had moved into a clean and sober house. Visitation was reportedly going well. However, there were concerns that Father was misusing his prescription medications, possibly mixing them with alcohol or trading them