Gerald F. v. Superior Court

Filed 8/15/06 Gerald F. v. Superior Court CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Gerald F. (Gerald), the biological father of 13-year-old S.F.[1], petitions for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order denying him reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 38.1, 38.3).[3] Gerald challenges the court's denial of his section 388 petition by which he sought elevation of his status to that of presumed father, reunification services, and immediate custody of the child. Additionally, he contends the child's attorney had a conflict of interest and failed to perform certain statutory duties under section 317, subdivision (e). Real party in interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) opposes the petition. We deny the petition on its merits.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2004, a referral was made to the Bureau regarding the lack of electricity and gas in the home where then 12-year-old S.F., and the child's half-sibling, 9-year-old V.D., were living with their mother. Mother was then pregnant with J.O., who was born two weeks later. After an investigation, the Bureau's social workers learned mother had a substance abuse problem. Although Gerald is listed as S.F.'s father on the child's birth certificate, mother never married him. Mother reported Gerald had not provided child support or had any contact with his child.

On January 14, 2005, the Bureau filed dependency petitions alleging mother's substance abuse problem impaired her ability to adequately parent S.F., V.D., and J.O. At a February 3, 2005, jurisdictional hearing, at which Gerald was present, mother admitted to amended allegations of parental impairment and the court adjudicated all the children dependents under section 300, subdivision (b).

Before the dispositional hearing, the Bureau's social worker reported that mother and J.O. were living in a residential drug treatment facility, and S.F. and V.D. were living with their maternal grandmother. Mother again reported S.F. had no relationship with Gerald and she could not remember the last time S.F. had any contact with Gerald. S.F. reported seeing Gerald within the past two years and the child would like to see him again. The social worker recommended family maintenance services, and supervised visitation between Gerald and his child. On April 19, 2005, the Bureau sent the court an updated report on mother's progress in drug treatment and information regarding Gerald. At that time, mother was still in residential drug treatment with J.O., and she saw S.F. and V.D. every weekend at the maternal grandmother's home. Additionally, Gerald had contacted one of the Bureau's social workers, and the worker sent Gerald a copy of the Bureau's report and informed him of the date, time, and location of the dispositional hearing set for April 20, 2005. At the April 20, 2005, dispositional hearing, Gerald was not present. The court continued the children as dependents, and granted mother family reunification services.

At a September 1, 2005, review hearing, the court continued the children as dependents. Having been released from the drug treatment program, mother regained physical custody of the children under a family maintenance plan supervised by the Bureau. However, mother repeatedly failed to appear for required drug testing.

On December 9, 2005, the Bureau filed a supplemental dependency petition, alleging mother was not complying with her case plan. On December 13, 2005, after a hearing, the court removed the children from their mother's home. At the December 15, 2005, jurisdictional hearing, at which Gerald was present, the court continued the children as dependents after sustaining the allegations in the supplemental petition against mother. Four days later, the Alternate Public Defender's office agreed to represent Gerald, and the matter was continued for status review hearings.

In January and February 2006 reports to the court, the Bureau's social worker noted that in January 2006, the children had been placed in the same foster home, where they reportedly were doing very well with a foster mother who was willing to keep the children â€