Filed4/10/14 In re Isaiah G. CA2/25 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re ISAIAH G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B251078 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK92330)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
CESAR L.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rudolph A. Diaz, Judge. Dismissed. Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION

Cesar L., an alleged biological father of Isaiah G., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating parental right s. Parental rights were term inated as to Isaiah and his half-sister, K.A. K.A. is not a subject of this appeal. Cesar L. never appeared in any juvenile court proceeding. Nor was Cesar L. ever identified in any documents filed with the juvenile court. He contends he was not notified of the dependency proceedings. Cesar L. maintains the failure to notify him violated his due process rights. We find Cesar L. lacks standing to appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On February 29, 2012, the Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a Welf are and Institutions Code 1 section 300 petition on behalf of Isaiah and K.A. The petition alleges J.A., th e children’s mother, pla ced the children in a detrimental and endangering s ituation. On February 23, 2012, K.A. was diagnosed and hospitalized with pneumonia. The mother allegedly removed the nasal cannula from K.A.’s face, preventing the ch ild from receiving o xygen. The mother also ripped the
intravenous needle from K.A.’s right hand. Also, the moth er removed the monitor leads from K.A. The section 300 petition alleges th e mother attempted to remove K.A. from the hospital against medical advice. The petiti on also alleges the mother and the father currently and for the last five y ears abused methamphetamines. On February 29, 2012, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the children as persons under secti on 300. R.H. was identified as K.A.’s father. Isaiah’s father was not identified. The juvenile cour t ruled the prior identification of R.H. as

1 Future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.3 Isaiah’s father was an error. The juvenile court ordered the children detained and made
monitored visits availabl e to the mother. On March 27, 2012, the de partment submitted proof of conducting searches for Isaiah’s father without success. On April 9, 2012, the juvenile court adjudicated the section 300 petition, sustained it and procee ded to disposition. The children were removed from the mother’s custody. The ju venile court ordered family reunifications services be provided to the mo ther and children. No services were provided to R.H.
At the contested six-month review hear ing on November 9, 2012, the juvenile
court found the mother was not in compliance with her case plan and terminated family reunification services. The juvenile court sc heduled a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the children. At the March 8, 2013 sec tion 366.26 hearing, the depa rtment submitted proof of conducting a search for Isaiah’s father without success. The children’s foster parents wanted to adopt the youngsters. On July 8, 2013, at the continued section 366.26 hearing, the foster parents’ home study wa s approved. No parents appeared at the hearing. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence the children were adoptable. Parental rights were terminated re garding Isaiah and K.A. The foster mother and father were designated as the prospec tive adoptive parents. On August 19, 2013, Cesar L. appealed the juvenile co urt’s July 8, 2013 orders.

B. Factual Background

1. Detention Report

On February 29, 2012, the social worker submitted her de tention report. K.A. was two months old and Isaiah was two years old at the time of the incide nt. On February 23, 2012, just before midnight, K.A. was bro ught to St. Francis Hospital. K.A. had pneumonia and difficulty breathing. She was al so blue. K.A. was put on an intravenous drip and oxygen. The hospital planned to take K.A. to Mille r’s Children’s Hospital. The4 mother removed K.A.’s intravenous drip and oxygen. The social worker, Tanya FrancisRussell, described what happened thereafter: “[I] conducted a telephone interview with Dr. Kiplouski with St. Francis Hospital she info rmed [me] that the st aff informed mother of her baby’s medical conditio n, still mother wanted to l eave the hospital and transport the baby herself. Dr. Kiplouski stated [every one] was explaining to the mother what was going to on hoping to cal m mother down but moth er still insisted on taking her baby from the hospital. [Dr. Kiplouski] stated that moth er had to be removed from the baby’s room to insure the baby remain sa fe.” Eventually, sheriff de puties became involved. The mother admitted using methamphetamine a week prior to the incident because of stress. An anonymous pers on familiar with the mother spoke to Ms. Francis-Russell. The person stated the mother was in a “zombie” state half of the time. A physician identified only as Dr. Africa of the Mille r’s Children’s Hospital stated K.A. had
bronchiolitis. The moth er admitted to removi ng K.A.’s intravenous drip and oxygen. The mother felt the hospital was not attending to K.A. The hospital had poked K.A. with
a needle in her back and taken fluids and th e child was crying. Th e mother stated she
was under stress because she could not find m oney received from her income tax. The
mother stated her children have different fath ers. She stated a person identified only as
R.H. was Isaiah’s father. In an addendum re port, the social worker noted she was unable to submit a request to the parent locator for the fathers because she lacked any identifying
information.

2. Pre-release investigation and hearing

The social worker recommende d the children not be releas ed to the custody of the maternal grandmother. On March 7, 2012 , the juvenile court ordered the children detained in shelter care pend ing the next hearing.5 3. Jurisdiction Report

On March 27, 2012, the soci al worker submitted a jurisdiction report. The social
worker concluded the children’s mother lacked basic parenti ng skills and sound judgment to safely and appropriately parent them. Th e social worker noted the mother’s illicit drug use history and current methamphetamine use. The social worker recommended family
reunification services that included: random drug testing; certified parenting classes; and individual counseling. The mother main tained she had no identifying or contact information regarding Isaiah’s father.

4. Due diligence declaration

The social worker submitted a due d iligence declaration on March 27, 2012 regarding Isaiah’s unknown father. The social worker noted various searches that could
not be done because the mother provided no identifying inform ation. The social worker submitted a similar due diligence de claration regarding R.H.

5. Status review report

On October 4, 2012, the social worker submitted a st atus review report. The
social worker noted the moth er tested positive for methamphetamines on May 30, June 27, and August 21, 2012. The mother had a ttended only 39 of 79 treatment days from May 8 to September 10, 2012. Of the 40 absences, only 8 were excused. The mother
missed most of the dates she was supposed to drug test. Th e mother’s attendance in the substance abuse program was inconsistent a nd she had not made significant progress in her parenting classes. The mother had indi cated she was going to stop attending the drug and alcohol program until she was reminded it wa s necessary in order to reunify with her children. The mother had wanted to ge t a job and an apartment instead.6 During visits, the mother overfed the child ren. The mother used inappropriate language in front of the children on one visit. The mother failed to visit the children for approximately four weeks. The social worker recommended fa mily reunification
services be terminated for the mother.

6. Section 366.26 report

On March 8, 2013, the so cial worker submitted the se ction 366.26 report. The social worker found an applicant family who were willing and able to provide a safe and permanent home for the children. No father was listed on the bi rth certificates for either
child. No father visited th e children. The department again submitted due diligence
declarations for Isaiah and K. A.’s fathers. The fathers for both children could not be
found or identified.

7. May 10, 2013 status report

The social worker noted the children rema ined in the foster home. The children were doing well and appeared very comfortable. The mother had be en incarcerated on March 5, 2013, on felony char ges. She was later released on March 28, 2013, as these charges were dismissed. The mother had not participated in court-ordered services and
would often not attend visits. The social worker reported, “Child ren Isaiah [G.] and [K.A.] ha[d] visited once or twice with patern al cousins and godparen ts to child Isaiah, [S.G. and R.G.].” The social worker noted the foster parents had: provided for the children’s medical needs; kept them clean and well dressed; engaged the children in activities promoting development and learning; and continued to cooperate with the case plan. The social worker reco mmended adoption for the children by the foster parents.7 III. DISCUSSION

The department moved to dismiss the appe al contending Cesar L. lacked standing. We have previously set forth the general rule in dependency cases for standing on appeal: “As a general rule, a parent may appeal from th e termination of parental rights. (§ 395; Cal. Rules of Court, rule [5.585].) However, only parties of record may appeal. ( County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730.) A party of record is a person named as a party to the proceedings or one who takes appr opriate steps to become a party of record in the proceedings. ( Eggert v. Pac. States S. & L. Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 199, 201.) A person does not become a party of record me rely because his or her name and interest appear in documents filed w ith the court or are referenced in the judgment. ( Ibid. )” ( In re Joseph G. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 712, 715, fns. om itted.) We further explained in the context of an alleged biological father, “[A] n alleged biological fath er who is not a party of record in the dependency court has no standi ng to appeal an order terminating parental rights.” ( In re Joseph G., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 716; In re Paul W. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 37, 56-58; accord In re Baby Boy V. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1117; In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 539.) He re, Cesar L. never appeared in the juvenile court nor took steps to do so. Thus, he has no standing to appeal. But, Cesar L. contends he was not prov ided notice of the dependency proceedings and this violated his due process rights. N one of his due process contentions resolve the standing issue. Cesar L. has no standing on appeal , to assert a deprivation of his due process rights. In any event, no due proce ss violation has occurred. Our colleagues in the Fourth Appellate District have held: “Due process requires that a parent is entitled to notice that is reasonably calculated to appr ise him or her of the dependenc y proceedings and afford him or her an oppo rtunity to object. [Citation. ] The child welfare agency must act with diligen ce to locate a missing parent. [Citation.] Reasonable diligence denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and an inquir y conducted in good faith. [Citation.] [¶] However, there is no due pr ocess violation when there has been a good faith attempt to provide notice to a parent who is transient and whose whereabouts are8 unknown for the majority of the proceedings. [Citations.]” ( In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188; In re Melinda J. (1991) 234 Cal.App. 3d 1413, 14 18-1419.) Here, it is undisputed Cesar L. never received notice of dependency proceedings concerning Isaiah. However, the department demonstrated it acted with diligence. The mother provided no id entifying information regarding Isai ah’s paternity. Isaiah’s birth certificate failed to identify a father. Cesa r L. made no appearance nor was he ever mentioned at any point during the dependenc y proceedings prior to parental rights
termination. There is no record that Cesar L. ever visited Isaiah while the child was in foster care. The department thus had no re asonable means of notifying any alleged father
for Isaiah. Cesar L. also contends the juvenile court failed to speak with S.G. and R.G. in an
effort to determine who fathered Isaiah. A ll of his arguments in this regard are mere speculation. Cesar L. argues S.G. and R.G. are Isaiah’s patern al cousins. It is unclear from the record whether S.G. and R.G. are pa ternally related to Isaiah. The relevant sentence appears in the May 10, 2013 status review report. The social worker wrote, “Children Isaiah and [K.A.] ha[d] visited once or twice with paternal cousins and godparents to child Is aiah, [S.G. and R.G.].” As noted, Isaiah’s father was unknown to the department and the juvenile court. The on ly paternal relationship listed is for K.A. Thus, S.G. and R.G. ma y be paternal cousins to K.A. a nd not Isaiah. Additionally, there
is no evidence S.G. and R.G. would have been able to locate Cesar L. We are unpersuaded that the department failed to act with d iligence to identify Is aiah’s father. Nor does any of the authority cited by Cesa r L. give him standing. Cesar L. relies

on In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App. 4th 753, 759. In Paul H. , an alleged biological father sought reversal of a court or der terminating parental rights. ( Ibid .) The appellate court found the alleged biological father had standing because he to ok immediate steps to become a party once notified of the dependency proceedings. ( Ibid .) The Court of Appeal found, “He contacted the social work er, appeared at the next court hearing, communicated to the court that he might be th e minor’s father and attempted to complete paternity testing.” ( Ibid .) Paul H. is inapplicable. Unlike the alleged father in In re Paul9 H. , Cesar L. did not appear in the dependenc y proceeding in any manner. His first act was to file a notice of appeal. He was not a party of record during the dependency proceeding at any point. ( In re Joseph G.
, supra , 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 715; see In re Baby Boy V.
, supra , 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1113, 1116-1117 [alleged father had standing to appeal when he appeared in dependency proceeding at ear liest practical point prior to termination of parental right s and attempted to join].)
Cesar L. also cites to In re Alyssa F. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 846, 855, arguing as an alleged biological father he is entitled to notice to ch ange his paternity status. Alyssa
F. concerned a father living in Mexico who did not receive notice of dependency proceedings concerning his daughter. ( Id. at p. 850.) The mother identified the father as the biological father. ( Ibid .) Alyssa F. is also inapplicable. As noted, Cesar L. was never identified in any submission or proceeding to the juvenile court as a possible biological father. The first time his name appears is on the notice of appeal. Accordingly, Cesar L. lacks standing to appeal the juvenile court’s or der terminating parental rights as to Isaiah and no due process violation has occurred.

IV. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHE D IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J. MINK, J. *

* Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.