Robert H. v. Superior Court

Filed 5/1/07 Robert H. v. Superior Court CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Siskiyou)

----

Petitioner, Robert H., natural father of the minor, Nicole H., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying petitioner reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code). In support of his petition, petitioner makes several claims of alleged error in the proceedings. We shall deny the petition.

FACTS

The dependency petition filed November 28, 2006, pursuant to section 300, on behalf of the days-old minor, named petitioner as the alleged father of the minor. That petition alleged the minor was at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to the minors mothers mental illness and her substance abuse. At the January 18, 2007, jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition.

Petitioner denied that he was the father of the minor.

However, at the March 1, 2007, disposition hearing, petitioner testified that genetic testing had concluded he was the biological father of the minor. Petitioner told the juvenile court that he did not recall ever having sexual intercourse with the minors mother. When he learned he was the minors biological father, petitioner decided he wanted reunification services and the opportunity to assume custody of the minor.

Petitioner admitted that, after learning the test results, he did not contact the Human Services Department (HSD), as his mother had advised him that he had no rights. Petitioner also acknowledged that he had fathered two other children, both of whom were in the dependency system, and had been offered services with respect to them. Petitioner thought those services had been terminated, and indicated he had not participated in services.

Petitioner told the juvenile court that he had been incarcerated for four months in late 2006. When asked why he believed it would be in the minors best interests for him to receive services, petitioner replied: I dont know. Because I think I can do it. I know I can do it. According to petitioner, he was participating in various programs.

HSD recommended denial of reunification services to petitioner. According to HSD, petitioner had failed to participate in a service plan ordered by the juvenile court pertaining to petitioners two other children. Petitioners counsel objected to the juvenile court taking judicial notice of records of petitioners other dependency proceedings. The juvenile court denied that objection and took judicial notice of records of those proceedings. At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, petitioners counsel argued that petitioner was making efforts to improve his situation, and also suggested that providing services to petitioner would serve the minors best interests.

The juvenile court ruled that petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of proof that the best interests of the minor would be promoted by providing petitioner with reunification services. The court also found that services for petitioner had been terminated in the proceedings relating to petitioners other children. The court denied reunification services for petitioner. Finally, the court adjudged the minor a dependent child and ordered the minor removed from parental custody.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that HSD erroneously disseminated confidential information and improperly sought judicial notice of records from the other dependency proceedings. Petitioner also claims that no substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts denial of reunification services to him, and he argues that his status as the biological father of the minor did not preclude the court from providing him with services.

The juvenile court properly took judicial notice that reunification services had been terminated in two earlier cases involving petitioner. (Evid. Code,  452, subd. (d).)

We conclude that, as the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile courts decision denying petitioner reunification services, we need not consider petitioners claims pertaining to the dissemination of confidential information by HSD.

As the natural or biological father of the minor (In re Jerry P. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 793, 801), petitioner is not entitled to reunification services. (In re Zacharaia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 451.) Instead, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child. ( 361.5, subd. (a).)

Here, the juvenile court found that providing reunification services to petitioner would not be in the minors best

interests. Substantial evidence supports that finding. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) Putting aside any evidence from other proceedings, the record before the juvenile court revealed that, by his own testimony, petitioner had not requested to see the minor, was unsure of the age of the minor, did not contact HSD about the minor, and claimed not to recall whether he had sexual intercourse with the minors mother. Moreover, when asked why it would be in the minors best interests for petitioner to receive services, petitioners response was all about petitioner--he said nothing about the minor. Indeed, how could he? As the record reflects, petitioner did not know the minor.

Due to the minors age when removed, had the juvenile court ordered services, petitioner would receive only six months of services. ( 361.5.) Undoubtedly, this young minor needs stability. Providing reunification services to petitioner would require putting the minors life on hold while petitioner participated in services and began establishing a relationship with a child he had never known. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to discern how the minor would be likely to benefit. There was no error or abuse of discretion in the juvenile courts order denying petitioner services. Substantial evidence supports its decision. (In re Elijah V. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 576, 589.)

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.

SIMS , Acting P.J.

We concur:

HULL, J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.