Filed 6/14/24 In re M.N. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re M.N., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

2d Juv. No. B332364

(Super. Ct. No. 22JV00222)

(Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

CHILD WELFARE 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.N.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

A.N. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his infant daughter, M.N. 
2

(Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26). He contends that the court erred 

in denying him presumed father status and that the section 

366.26 report was inadequate. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

M.N. was born in July 2022. Santa Barbara County Child 

Welfare Services (CWS) took protective custody over M.N. when 

she was four days old. The amended juvenile petition alleged 

that B.R. (Mother)

2 used drugs during her pregnancy and that 

M.N.’s umbilical cord tested positive for drugs at birth. It also 

alleged Father should have reasonably known of Mother’s drug 

abuse and failed to protect M.N. Additionally, the petition 

alleged that Father had a history of drug use and admitted recent 

drug use. He also had an extensive criminal history. 

At the detention hearing, Mother stated Father was M.N.’s 

father, there was no chance that anyone else could be the father, 

and that Father was present at the hospital for M.N.’s birth. 

Mother said that Father did not sign M.N.’s birth certificate 

because he was at work when she filled out the paperwork. 

Father also said he was M.N.’s father. However, he declined a 

DNA paternity test because he was “confident that he [was] the 

father.” CWS requested the court defer paternity determinations 

until after it received the birth certificate. Father requested that 

he be treated as a presumed father for the purposes of receiving 

visitation and services. 

The court deferred the paternity determination and found 

that Father was the “alleged father” but “presumed father” for 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. 

2 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
3

the “purposes of visitation only.” As to reunification services, the 

court found that he was not entitled to reunification services as 

an alleged father. The court ordered M.N. to remain detained 

and ordered supervised visitation. 

At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing in August 

2022, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true. 

Father, as an “alleged father,” did not have standing regarding 

jurisdiction. He requested a paternity test and a paternity 

review hearing. The court granted Father’s request. A 

dispositional order was filed on August 16, 2022. 

At an interim paternity review hearing on October 4, 2022,

CWS reported that Mother and Father were not in contact with 

the social worker. They could not be reached by phone and did 

not answer the door when the social worker went to their home. 

Most of Father’s scheduled visits were no-shows or canceled due 

to “flu-like symptoms.” Father had been receiving services for 

drug treatment, but he was discharged for noncompliance. He 

tested positive for methamphetamine about two weeks before the 

hearing. CWS also referred Father to parenting education and 

mental health assessment services, but he did not participate. 

CWS requested that Father only be found as the “biological 

father” based on the paternity test results. If Father wanted to 

be elevated to “presumed father,” he would need to submit a 

JV-505 petition—Statement Regarding Parentage. The court 

agreed and found Father to be the biological father. The court 

asked Father’s counsel if he (or other counsel) would help him 

complete a JV-505 petition, and counsel responded, “Yes.” CWS 

requested another review hearing so that it could assess Father 

for services and provide him with proper referrals. The court 

granted the request. 
4

CWS filed an interim review report in which it 

recommended no reunification services for Father because they 

were not in M.N.’s best interest. Since the disposition hearing, 

Father missed most of his scheduled visits. CWS also referred 

Father to several other services, including parenting education, 

drug treatment, and mental health services, but he did not 

engage in any of them. Father was not in contact with social 

workers. 

At Father’s referral hearing on October 18, 2022, CWS 

argued that Father, as “biological father,” was not entitled to 

services because they were not in M.N.’s best interest (§ 361.5, 

subd. (a)). It also asserted that Father would need to file a 

JV-180—Request to Change Court Order—to receive services. 

Father indicated that he would file a JV-180. The court followed 

CWS’s recommendation and did not order reunification services 

for Father. 

In its six-month review report, CWS recommended 

Mother’s services be terminated and the court set a section

366.26 hearing. The juvenile court adopted CWS’s 

recommendations and set a date for this hearing. The court 

advised Mother and Father that they had the right to contest the 

court’s decision and that they must do so by writ. 

In the section 366.26 report, CWS recommended Father 

and Mother’s parental rights be terminated and that adoption be 

selected as the permanent plan. The report included a history of 

contacts between M.N. and her parents since March 16, 2023. It 

described one two-hour supervised visit in June 2023 which 

Father and Mother both attended. The report also noted that 

M.N. had been with her caregivers (paternal aunt and uncle) 
5

since she was 12 days old and was thriving in their care. The 

caregivers wished to adopt M.N. 

Father submitted his offer of proof stating his intent to 

offer evidence that the beneficial parent relationship exception

applied. He noted the section 366.26 report only included visits 

from March 2023 to July 2023, and that he was incarcerated

during April and May 2023. Father maintained that he 

consistently and regularly attended visits between August 2022 

and October 2022. 

At the August 2023 section 366.26 hearing, Father did not 

appear. He messaged his attorney to state that his preference 

was to “rest . . . the case.” The court found notice was given to 

the parents and “they . . . failed to appear.” The court deemed 

that it was “essentially an indication they’re not contesting the 

Department’s recommendation.” The court found M.N. likely to 

be adopted and terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights. 

DISCUSSION

Presumed father status

“[P]resumed fathers possess far greater rights than alleged 

or biological fathers. [Citation.] Only a presumed, not a mere 

biological, father is a ‘parent’ entitled to receive reunification

services . . . . [Citation.] In contrast, the juvenile court ‘may’

order reunification services for a biological father if the court

determines that the services will benefit the child.” (Francisco G.

v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 596; § 361.5, subd. 

(a).)

Father contends the juvenile court erred when it found him 

to be only a “biological father,” and not a “presumed father.” He 

claims the court improperly delegated its paternity status 

determination to county counsel, resulting in the denial of 
6

presumed father status and reunification services. CWS argues 

Father forfeited his arguments. We agree that Father forfeited 

his arguments. 

“[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge

to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in

the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to

encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial

court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency

matters are not exempt from this rule.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32

Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. omitted.) An “appellate court’s discretion 

to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases 

presenting an important legal issue.” (Ibid.) In dependency 

cases, “the discretion must be exercised with special care” 

because “these proceedings involve the well-being of children, 

[and] considerations such as permanency and stability are of 

paramount importance.” (Ibid.) A “party is precluded from 

urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court. 

[Citation.] Any other rule would ‘ “ ‘permit a party to play fast 

and loose with the administration of justice by deliberately 

standing by without making an objection of which he is aware 

and thereby permitting the proceedings to go to a conclusion 

which he may acquiesce in, if favorable, and which he may avoid, 

if not.’ ” ’ ” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 411-412.)

We decline to excuse Father’s forfeiture. He had the

opportunity to request elevation to “presumed father” status by

submitting a JV-505 petition but failed to do so. Father also had

the opportunity to challenge the court’s order denying his

reunification services by filing a JV-180 to change the court’s

order. Father indicated he would file a JV-180, but the record

does not reflect that he did so. 
7

Father also did not seek timely review of the October 18,

2022, order in which the juvenile court denied reunification

services. “ ‘ “In a section 300 proceeding, the order entered at the

dispositional hearing is a final judgment.” ’ ” (In re T.G. (2010)

188 Cal.App.4th 687, 692.) “The waiver rule as applied in

dependency cases flows from section 395, under which the

dispositional order is an appealable judgment, and all subsequent

orders are directly appealable without limitation except for

post-1994 orders setting a .26 hearing, which are subject to writ

review . . . and related limitations (§ 366.26, subd. (l)).” (In re

Jesse W. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 349, 355.) Unappealed

disposition and postdisposition orders are “final and binding and

may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order.”

(In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150-1151.) “The 

time for appeal of an order made in a dependency case is 60 days 

from the date of the order’s pronouncement in open court.” (In re 

A.J. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 7, 16.) Because the order denying

reunification services to Father was a postdisposition order

appealable under section 395, subdivision (a)(1), and Father did

not timely appeal from that order, Father cannot belatedly

challenge the denial of reunification services. 

Section 366.26 report adequacy

Father contends CWS submitted an inadequate section 

366.26 report because it “was largely silent” on his visits as 

required under In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, and the 

report only included visits after March 16, 2023 (the date the 

court set the section 366.26 hearing). CWS contends Father 

forfeited this argument because he did not object to the adequacy

of the report. We again agree the claim was forfeited. (See In re 
8

Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502; In re Crystal J. (1993) 

12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412.) 

And in our view, any error did not result in a miscarriage of 

justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; In re Dakota S., supra, 85 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 502-503.) Father’s offer of proof purported to 

show that he maintained regular and consistent visits from

August 2022 through October 2022, brought gifts to the visits, 

and had a bond with M.N. that would be detrimental to 

terminate. But Father did not appear at the hearing to decide 

the sufficiency of his amended offer of proof. And according to 

CWS’s previous reports, Father missed most of the scheduled 

visits between the disposition hearing and the interim review 

report. M.N., who was 13 months old at the section 366.26 

hearing, lived essentially her entire life with her caregivers and 

was thriving. Under these circumstances, it is not reasonably 

probable Father would have obtained a more favorable result had 

the section 366.26 report included a more detailed summary of 

his visits.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating Father’s parental rights is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. CODY, J.
Gustavo E. Lavayen, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant. 

Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.