Filed 11/28/05 Mark R. v. Super. Ct. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARK R., Petitioner: v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

G036091 (Super. Ct. Nos. J437545 & DP008543) O P I N I O N

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carolyn Kirkwood, Judge. Petition denied.

Muriel L. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy Counsel, and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Karen Cianfrani for the Minors.

* * *

Mark R., presumed father of Patricia R. (now nine years old), and Misty R. (now six years old), seeks relief from the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and scheduling a permanency hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The father contends the court erred in finding that he was offered reasonable reunification services and that returning the children to his custody would create a substantial risk of detriment. We deny the petition.

FACTS

In a dependency petition filed May 28, 2003, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) alleged Patricia and Misty came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition alleged, inter alia, that Misty was â€