In re M.N. CA2/6

Filed 6/14/24 In re M.N. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.N., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B332364 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 22JV00222) Law. (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.N. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his infant daughter, M.N.

(Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26). He contends that the court erred in denying him presumed father status and that the section 366.26 report was inadequate. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY M.N. was born in July 2022. Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) took protective custody over M.N. when she was four days old. The amended juvenile petition alleged that B.R. (Mother)2 used drugs during her pregnancy and that M.N.’s umbilical cord tested positive for drugs at birth. It also alleged Father should have reasonably known of Mother’s drug abuse and failed to protect M.N. Additionally, the petition alleged that Father had a history of drug use and admitted recent drug use. He also had an extensive criminal history. At the detention hearing, Mother stated Father was M.N.’s father, there was no chance that anyone else could be the father, and that Father was present at the hospital for M.N.’s birth. Mother said that Father did not sign M.N.’s birth certificate because he was at work when she filled out the paperwork. Father also said he was M.N.’s father. However, he declined a DNA paternity test because he was “confident that he [was] the father.” CWS requested the court defer paternity determinations until after it received the birth certificate. Father requested that he be treated as a presumed father for the purposes of receiving visitation and services. The court deferred the paternity determination and found that Father was the “alleged father” but “presumed father” for