In re K.W. CA4/1

Filed 2/28/23 In re K.W. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re K.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH & D080786 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4725B) v.

D.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Claudia Silva, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Lisa Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Children’s Legal Services and Beth Ploesch, for Minor.

D.A. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s custody and exit orders regarding her daughter, K.W., giving her physical custody, awarding J.E. (Father) joint legal custody, and terminating dependency jurisdiction. She contends the juvenile court erred as a matter of law when it awarded Father joint legal custody because, as a mere biological father, he had no right to custody.1 We disagree with Mother’s contention that Father has no right to custody as a matter of law but reverse the juvenile court’s order because it misstated the applicable standard guiding its discretion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In December 2021, the Agency filed a petition alleging that four-year- old K.W. was subject to juvenile court jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), because she had been exposed to violent confrontations

between Mother and her boyfriend.3 At the detention hearing the following day, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been made that K.W. was described by section 300, detained her from Mother, and granted Mother supervised visitation. Mother identified Father as K.W.’s biological father but stated that he had not had contact with K.W. for over three years. The Agency located Father who explained he had not seen K.W. since January or