1

Filed 9/9/15 In re S.C. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

In re S.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

C077788

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 53004135)

Kenneth G., alleged father of the minor S.C., appeals from the judgment of 

disposition placing S.C. in foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 Father, who is

incarcerated out-of-state, contends in relevant part that the juvenile court erred in failing 

 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

to give him an opportunity to establish paternity. Respondent Placer County Department 

of Health and Human Services (Department) challenges father’s standing to bring this 

appeal. As we will explain, we agree that father lacks standing. We shall dismiss his

appeal.

FACTS

In September 2014, the Department filed a petition alleging the minor was 

suffering serious emotional damage because there was no parent capable of providing her

appropriate care. Mother was unable to provide for her and father was in prison in North 

Carolina. Mother told the court she had been unable to locate father until the minor was 

12 years old; after that, father exchanged letters with the minor but had no other contact. 

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court designated father as alleged. 

The Department located father after an inmate search and, on September 22, 2014,

sent him notice of the pending jurisdiction hearing, to be held on October 16, 2014. The 

notice was received September 26, 2014. The notice, using the JV-280 form, included

the court’s mailing address and telephone number, as well as the advisement: “You have 

the right to be present at the hearing, to present evidence, and to be represented by an 

attorney. . . . [T]he court will appoint an attorney for you if you cannot afford one.” That 

same day, the clerk also mailed father copies of the petition, the detention report, the 

detention orders, a parent handbook, and several forms including the JV-505.2

 

2

 Form JV-505, entitled “Statement Regarding Parentage,” gives an individual the 

opportunity to provide various facts to the juvenile court which allows the court to assess 

that individual’s claim of parentage of the minors who are the subject of a dependency 

petition. 
3

The jurisdiction/disposition report recommended that the court sustain the petition 

and offer reunification services to the mother but not to father (as he was an alleged 

father). The report, which included both the social worker’s name and address and the 

name and address of Department’s counsel, was mailed to father on October 3, 2014.3 

At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court sustained the petition

and denied services to father, who remained alleged. The record does not reflect any 

attempt by father to contact anyone related to these proceedings--including the court, the 

Department, or any involved counsel--whether by returning a completed form JV-505 or 

otherwise, before filing his notice of appeal in November 2014. 

DISCUSSION

An alleged biological father--such as father here--who has not appeared and 

asserted a position in the dependency court has no standing to appeal the orders of that 

court. (See In re Joseph G. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 712, 715-716 [father who is not a 

party of record lacks standing to appeal]; In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 759 

[father becomes a party when he appears and asserts a position]; see also In re Miguel E.

(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 539 [grandparents who were not parties of record and did 

not take steps to become parties lacked standing to appeal].)

Father claims error in several respects, all of which share a common and 

dispositive flaw as they arise from his (incorrect) factual assertion that he was never 

provided with the opportunity to see the petition and to complete a form JV-505. He 

argues that had those materials been properly served on him, he would have had an 

opportunity to establish paternity and have counsel appointed. However, as we have 

 

3

 The proof of service for this mailing was the sole proof of service provided to us in the 

original clerk’s transcript on appeal. On our own motion, we requested and received 

from the superior court a supplemental clerk’s transcript containing all proofs of service 

in its record. 
4

explained, the record as supplemented by the superior court shows that he was provided 

with the relevant documents and form. Further, even the original record on appeal shows 

that he received notice of the hearing and his right to be there.

Father does not dispute that he is an alleged father who has not appeared and 

asserted a position. Instead, he argues that “every possible way that [he] could have 

appeared, or could have asserted a position before the court was foreclosed, due to either 

his incarceration, or the actions of the juvenile court.” He bases this argument on the 

incorrect factual predicate that he “did ‘appear’ in the only way that was available to him, 

which was by completing and returning the one form that was provided to him: the notice 

of appeal form.”

This argument fails, because father was provided notice of the proceeding by 

means of the notice of hearing, which informed him of the dependency proceedings and 

his right to counsel. Even in the absence of form JV-505, the notice (form JV-280) gave 

him enough information to contact the court and assert a position. However, the proofs 

of service show the court also sent father the petition, reports, and form JV-505. Despite 

all this information provided to father, the record is devoid of any attempt by him to

assert his parental status and ask for counsel. 

Accordingly, father has not yet achieved party status and his appeal must be 

dismissed for lack of standing.
5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

 DUARTE , J.

We concur:

 RAYE , P. J.

 MAURO , J.