In re K.N. CA1/2

Filed 6/28/24 In re K.N. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re K.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A167920 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J2200562) N.N. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 N.N., the presumed father of nineteen-month-old K.N., appeals the disposition order entered after a contested combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. While the appeal was pending, father also filed a petition for writ of

1Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)

1

mandate challenging the juvenile court’s subsequent order terminating his reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26. In a prior opinion already issued, we issued a writ directing the juvenile court to order the return of K.N. to father’s physical custody barring new developments (see § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)), or in the event of new developments, to continue the case to an 18-month review hearing and afford father reasonable reunification services. (N.N. v. Contra Costa Superior Court (June 27, 2024 A169941) [nonpub. opn.].) We presume the parties’ familiarity with our prior opinion. In this appeal, father raises two issues. He challenges the exercise of jurisdiction over K.N. under section 300, subdivision (j) (sibling abuse), and argues the juvenile court erred in declining to return K.N. to his physical custody at the disposition hearing. No reply brief has been filed.2 First, father has not demonstrated the juvenile court erred in asserting jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j), based on the circumstances of a pending dependency proceeding involving K.N.’s two older siblings.3 He contends that because the superior court dismissed the allegations