In re Isabel C.
Filed 8/15/07 In re Isabel C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ISABEL C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS B., Defendant and Appellant. | D050573 (Super. Ct. No. SJ11708) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Josephine Dedina, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Dennis B. appeals an order of the juvenile court denying his request to have his minor daughter, Isabel C., placed with him as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2. (Statutory references are to the Welf. and Inst. Code.) Dennis contends: (1) the court erred by denying his request for judicial notice of a judgment of paternity entered in the family court; (2) the judgment of paternity entitled him to all the rights and obligations of paternity, including placement of Isabel; and (3) the court erroneously relied on In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435 to find he was a biological, rather than presumed, father. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2006, six-year-old Isabel became a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (d) based on findings she had been sexually abused by her mother's live-in boyfriend. Isabel's mother, V.C., identified Dennis as Isabel's biological father, and paternity testing confirmed this. A stipulated judgment, filed in the family support division of the superior court on November 2, 2006, ordered Dennis to pay child support based on his admission he was Isabel's father. Dennis acknowledged he had never seen Isabel and was not ready to be a father when she was born. The juvenile court found Dennis was Isabel's biological father and entered a judgment of paternity.
At a contested disposition hearing, the court denied as unnecessary Dennis's request to take judicial notice of the family support order. Dennis requested custody of Isabel as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent. After considering the reports of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency), the testimony of various witnesses and argument of counsel, the court found placing Isabel with Dennis would be detrimental to her. The court declined to change Dennis's paternity status from biological to presumed father, but ordered reunification services for him, including supervised visitation. The court placed Isabel with V.C.
DISCUSSION
I
Dennis contends the court erred by denying his request for judicial notice of the family support order adjudicating him to be Isabel's father. He asserts the error caused the court to treat him as an "alleged, biological father," rather than an adjudicated father with all the rights and obligations of paternity.
Judicial notice of the family support order was unnecessary because the juvenile court had entered its own judgment of paternity. Based on that paternity judgment, the court ordered services for Dennis and considered his request to have Isabel placed with him. Regardless of whether the court took judicial notice of the family support order, Dennis was accorded all the rights and obligations of paternity.
II
Dennis contends he was entitled to be considered as a placement option for Isabel because the judgment of paternity required the court to treat him as a nonoffending, noncustodial parent under section 361.2.
Under section 361.2, the court must place a dependent child with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent who requests custody, unless the placement would be detrimental to the child's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Section 361.2 applies only when the court orders a dependent child removed from the custodial parent at disposition. ( 361.2, subd. (a); In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.) Because the court did not remove Isabel from her mother's custody at disposition, the provisions of section 361.2 were inapplicable.
In any event, regardless of Dennis's paternity status, the court did consider him as a placement option for Isabel, but found the placement would be detrimental to her. The evidence showed Isabel had no relationship with Dennis because he chose not to be a part of her life, and she was just now getting acquainted with him through visitation. Further, Dennis needed to learn parenting skills and develop an understanding of the dynamics of generational sexual abuse and the effect it had on Isabel. Isabel felt secure with her mother and wanted to live with her. Thus, substantial evidence supports the court's decision denying Dennis's request for placement. (In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1569; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329-330.)
III
Dennis contends the court erroneously relied on In re Zacharia D., supra, 6 Cal.4th 435 to find he was a biological rather than presumed father. However, as we previously discussed, the court treated Dennis in every regard as though he had acquired presumed father status. The holding in Zacharia D. had no bearing on the outcome of this case.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P.J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
