Filed 1/16/18 In re W.C. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re W.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.C., Defendant and Appellant.
| F075817
(Super. Ct. No. JV7783) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge.
Susan M. O’Brien, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On May 18, 2017, the juvenile court, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, adjudged then one-year-old W.C. a dependent child after sustaining allegations he suffered nonaccidental injuries while in the care of his parents, K.C. (father) and A.C. (mother), who shared joint custody. The court returned W.C. to mother’s custody but ordered his continued detention from father, finding it would be detrimental to return him to father’s custody. On May 30 and June 13, 2017, at uncontested dispositional hearings, the court ordered family maintenance services for mother and accepted father’s waiver of reunification services, respectively.
Father appealed from the juvenile court’s May 18, 2017, findings and orders.[1] After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Father submitted a letter in which he in essence contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding he posed a risk of harm to W.C., stating, “The court was unable to determine whether the incident in question happened under the father’s or the mother’s care.” He further contends the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) blamed him for W.C.’s injuries and, together with the juvenile court, treated him unfairly.
We conclude father failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26[2] hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.[3]
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
On March 1, 2017, mother picked up then nine-month-old W.C. from father at approximately 7:30 p.m. Father told her W.C. hit his face against his crib and that he had some slight bruising. Not wanting to “make a big deal” out of the bruise in front of father, mother returned home with W.C. where she examined his facial bruising under better light and took him to the emergency room. The examining physician observed red marks on W.C.’s cheeks consistent with a forceful blow to the head. The doctor did not believe father’s explanation that W.C. sustained his injuries by falling in his crib. Mother reported that W.C. had returned from father’s care twice before with bruising, which she photographed. She did not report the incidents because she did not believe father injured W.C. intentionally.
Unable to determine which parent injured W.C., the department took him into protective custody and filed a dependency petition, seeking the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b)(1) (failure to protect). The department also arranged to have W.C. evaluated by a physician at a child abuse resources center. The physician concluded W.C. was physically abused, having sustained a forceful slap to the face.
On May 18, 2017, at the contested jurisdictional hearing, mother submitted to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Father testified that W.C. “bonked” his right eye on the crib and that the only facial mark he had when mother picked him up was the redness under his right eye. He denied hurting W.C. or knowing how he was injured. He expressed frustration that the department “shrugged off” his concerns about mother and her personal life. He felt helpless and discriminated against.
The juvenile court found that W.C. suffered a nonaccidental injury and that both parents and their significant others had access to him. The court sustained the allegations in the petition, ordered W.C. released to his mother’s custody pending disposition of the case and ordered his continued detention from father. The court set the dispositional hearing for May 30, 2017. Following the jurisdictional hearing, father’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw with father’s consent.
On May 30, 2017, the juvenile court ordered W.C. returned to mother’s custody with family maintenance services. Father read a lengthy statement, blaming the department for treating mother favorably and treating him as the perpetrator of W.C.’s injuries. He said his physical, mental and emotional health had suffered tremendously and, after reviewing the department’s proposed reunification plan, he did not believe he could continue in the program for a year. He informed the court he wanted to relinquish his parental rights to W.C.
The juvenile court relieved father’s trial attorney, appointed new counsel and continued the dispositional hearing as to father to June 13, 2017, to allow his new attorney to familiarize herself with the case.
On June 13, 2017, father appeared with his attorney and waived his reunification services.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment. However, the court’s assessment of detriment bears on its decision whether to return the child to parental custody. In this case, father waived reunification services and, in doing so, abandoned his effort to regain custody of his son for purposes of these proceedings. Consequently, even if the juvenile court’s detriment finding was error, father was not prejudiced by it because he forfeited his opportunity to regain custody of W.C.
We conclude father failed to identify any arguable issues that merit briefing and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.
* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J., and Meehan, J.
[1] We construe father’s appeal from the juvenile court’s rulings issued at the dispositional hearing on June 13, 2017, rather than the jurisdictional hearing on May 18. Since the dispositional order is the first judgment in a dependency proceeding, a challenge to the jurisdictional findings must be made from the dispositional order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; In re Candida S. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1249.)
[2] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[3] Mother also filed an appeal from the juvenile court’s May 18, 2017, rulings, which we assigned case No. F075817. Mother’s appellate counsel filed a “no issues” letter pursuant to Phoenix H. and we granted mother until November 13, 2017, within which to file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable legal issue exists on the record. We advised mother that her appeal would be dismissed “[i]f no such letter is filed within the time specified in this order.” On November 16, 2017, we dismissed mother’s appeal for failure to file a letter.
