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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 WELFAR E

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 wa s inadequate . We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

M.N . was born in July 202 2

. Santa Barbara County Child

Welfare Services (C W S) 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 state d 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 th e paperwork.

Father also said he was M.N.’s father

. However, he dec lined a

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

father.” CWS requested th e court defer paternity determinations

until after it received the birth certificate. Fat her 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 t he “alleged father” but “presumed father” for

1 S tatutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

2 Mother is not a party to this appeal.3

the “purposes of visitati on 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

jurisdictio n. He requested a paternity test an d a paternity

review hearing

. The court gra nted Father’s request. A

dispositional order was filed o n August 16, 2022.

A t 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 sympt oms. ” Father had been receiving services for

drug treatment, but he was discharged for noncomp liance. 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 “biolog ical

father” based on the paternity test results. I f Father w anted 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 a nother review hearing so that it could assess Father

fo r 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 hearin g,

Father missed m ost of his schedule d visits

. CWS also referred

Father to several other services, including parent ing 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 ass erted 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 re commended

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

366.26 hearing. The juvenile court adopted CWS’s

recommendatio ns and set a date for th is hearing. T he court

advised Mothe r 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 pa r en t al rights be termina t ed 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 care givers (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 r egularly 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.” T he court found M.N. likely to

be adopted and terminated Mother and Fathe r’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

servic es

. . . . [Citation

. ] In contrast, the juvenile court ‘may’

order reunification services for a biological father i f 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 whe n 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 of6

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.) A n “appellate court ’ s discretion

to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases

presenting an important legal issue

. ” ( I bid. ) 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 p roceedings 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

. H e had the

opportunity to request elevation to “presumed father” status by

submit ting a JV

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

the opportunity to challenge the court’s order denying his

reun ification 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 den ied 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

di spositional 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 order s 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 den ying

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 C W S submitted an inadequate section

366.26 report because it “was largely silent ” on his visit s 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 hearin g) . C W S contends Father

forfeited this argument because he did not object to the adequacy

of the report. We ag ain agree the claim was forfeited

. (See In re8

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.4 th 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 a ccording to

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

visits between the disposition hearing and the interim review

report

. M.N.

, who was 1 3 months old at the section 366.26

hearing, lived essentially her entire life with her care giver s 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 in cluded 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.