In re Baby Boy T.

Filed 1/23/07  In re Baby Boy T. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.  Robert Anspach, Judge.

            Laura D. Pedicini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer Esquivel Zahry, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Marc D. Widelock for Defendant and Respondent.

            Mark A. Arnold, Public Defender, and Brad Spencer, Deputy Public Defender for Baby Boy T.

-ooOoo-

            Appellant Joe R. appeals the juvenile court's denial of his request for placement of his son, Baby Boy T., in his home pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.^[1]  Alternatively, he contends the reunification services ordered provided were inadequate.  We will reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            The Kern County Department of Human Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition on February 10, 2006, on behalf of newborn Baby Boy T.  It alleged that he was at risk of suffering serious physical harm because his mother, Monica T., tested positive for opiates at his birth; had prior convictions for use of methamphetamine; was a registered narcotic offender; and previously had violated probation.  The petition also alleged that Monica's parental rights to three of her older children had been terminated when she failed to reunify after the children were adjudged dependents of the juvenilecourt based upon her drug abuse.   

            Joe was listed as the alleged father in the petition.  At the February 14, 2006, detention hearing, Monica stated she did not know the identity of the baby's father.  Baby Boy T. was detained and eventually placed with the maternal grandmother. 

            At the March 13, 2006, jurisdictional hearing, Joe submitted a signed statement indicating he did not know whether he was the father and he requested paternity testing.  If the baby were his, Joe was requesting placement of the child with him.    

            The paternity testing established a 99.99 percent probability that Joe was the baby's biological father.   

            A supplemental disposition report was filed May 19, 2006.  That report disclosed that Joe had a 2001 conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale; a 1996 conviction for a terrorist threat; convictions in 2000 and 2001 for driving with a suspended license, driving an unregistered vehicle, and failing to maintain insurance; and one parole violation in March 2004.  

            Joe's parole agent reported that Joe was released from parole on May 4, 2006.  While on parole, he had no positive drug tests or any other problems.  The parole agent reported that she had visited Joe's house, last visiting two weeks earlier.  Joe had a full-time job and a â€