In re T.C.
Filed 8/4/06 In re T.C. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| In re T.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL W., Defendant and Appellant. |
C052176
(Super. Ct. No. JD222807)
|
P.W. (appellant), formerly the alleged father of T.C. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying appellant's requests to be considered as the presumed father of the minor and the de facto parent of the minor, and terminating parental rights. (Fam. Code, § 7611; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant makes no claim of error pertaining to the court's orders denying him de facto parent status and terminating parental rights. Accordingly, we will consider his appeal abandoned as to those orders. (Cf. People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514, 518, fn. 2.) Moreover, as he appeared and asserted a position in the juvenile court, we presume appellant has standing on appeal to raise issues concerning his alleged parental interest in the minor. (Cf. In re Joseph G. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 712, 715; In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356.) Appellant contends the juvenile court's denials of his requests are not supported by substantial evidence and the court violated appellant's right to procedural due process, requiring reversal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The minor was born in September 2004. Appellant asserted he had lived with the minor and the minor's mother from February 2005 until July 2005. On July 29, 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) detained and placed the minor in foster care. Thereafter, on August 2, 2005, DHHS filed an original juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the then 10-month-old minor. That petition named another man, Lucas C., rather than appellant, as the minor's alleged father. Because the petition makes allegations pertaining only to the minor's mother, and she is not a party to this appeal, we omit facts alleged in the petition.
Appellant and the minor's mother allegedly married on August 2, 2005. The mother first claimed the father of the minor was Lucas C. Thereafter, in December 2005, the mother of the minor stated that appellant was the biological father of and sole provider for the minor.
On September 16, 2005, the juvenile court sustained the petition, adjudged the minor a dependent child, denied reunification services, and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing.
In October 2005, appellant began writing and sending correspondence to various agencies, including DHHS and the juvenile court, in which he averred the minor was his son, and indicated a desire to reunite with him. Appellant, who was in custody, requested the appointment of counsel to represent him and asked to be present at court hearings pertaining to the minor. In a November 7, 2005, document, appellant claimed he was a presumed father of the minor and asked the court to order reunification services for him.
In late October 2005, DHHS advised the juvenile court that it had just learned about appellant, describing him as an â€
