In re S.W. CA2/6

Filed 9/18/23 In re S.W. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re S.W., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B327560 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. J073162) Law. (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, S.W., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1

1Further unspecified statutory references are to the

Welfare and Institutions Code.

§ 366.26.) He contends, and the Ventura County Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes, the order terminating his parental rights must be reversed because the Agency did not exercise due diligence in locating him. We agree and reverse the parental rights termination order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 2022, the Agency filed a juvenile petition alleging that six-year-old S.W. suffered serious physical and emotional abuse from A.H. (Mother) and her stepmother. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b)(1), (c), (g) & (i).) The petition alleged Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Mother identified Father as S.W.’s father. She had not been in a relationship with him for four years. She said they shared joint custody of S.W. because she never filed for sole custody. S.W. did not visit Father because Mother had concerns about his ability to parent. During an interview, S.W. said that she had not “talked to [Father] in ‘a long time’ and stated that he lives ‘far away.’ ” The Agency asked Mother about Father’s whereabouts and information, but Mother denied having information. The Agency also attempted to notice Father of the detention hearing, but the phone number it had for Father was not in service. The Agency attempted to locate Father on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Public Inmate Locator System, but the website was not allowing access. At the detention hearing, Father was not present. The juvenile court found Father to be the alleged father and ordered a paternity inquiry to be sent to the Department of Child Support Services. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found a prima facie case existed to detain minor in protective custody.