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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 the 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 rights. Parental rights were terminated 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 Welfare and Institutions Code1

 section 300 petition on behalf of 

Isaiah and K.A. The petition alleges J.A., the children’s mother, placed the children in a 

detrimental and endangering situation. 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 child from receiving oxygen. The mother also ripped the 

intravenous needle from K.A.’s right hand. Also, the mother removed the monitor leads 

from K.A. The section 300 petition alleges the mother attempted to remove K.A. from 

the hospital against medical advice. The petition also alleges the mother and the father 

currently and for the last five years abused methamphetamines. 

 On February 29, 2012, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining the 

children as persons under section 300. R.H. was identified as K.A.’s father. Isaiah’s 

father was not identified. The juvenile court 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 available to the mother. 

 On March 27, 2012, the department 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 proceeded to disposition. The children were 

removed from the mother’s custody. The juvenile court ordered family reunifications 

services be provided to the mother and children. No services were provided to R.H. 

 At the contested six-month review hearing 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 scheduled a section 366.26 hearing to select a 

permanent plan for the children. 

 At the March 8, 2013 section 366.26 hearing, the department 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 was approved. No parents appeared at the 

hearing. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence the children were 

adoptable. Parental rights were terminated regarding Isaiah and K.A. The foster mother 

and father were designated as the prospective adoptive parents. On August 19, 2013, 

Cesar L. appealed the juvenile court’s July 8, 2013 orders. 

B. Factual Background 

1. Detention Report 

 On February 29, 2012, the social worker submitted her detention report. K.A. was 

two months old and Isaiah was two years old at the time of the incident. On February 23, 

2012, just before midnight, K.A. was brought to St. Francis Hospital. K.A. had 

pneumonia and difficulty breathing. She was also blue. K.A. was put on an intravenous 

drip and oxygen. The hospital planned to take K.A. to Miller’s Children’s Hospital. The 
4

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 informed [me] that the staff informed mother 

of her baby’s medical condition, still mother wanted to leave the hospital and transport 

the baby herself. Dr. Kiplouski stated [everyone] was explaining to the mother what was 

going to on hoping to calm mother down but mother still insisted on taking her baby from 

the hospital. [Dr. Kiplouski] stated that mother had to be removed from the baby’s room 

to insure the baby remain safe.” Eventually, sheriff deputies became involved. 

 The mother admitted using methamphetamine a week prior to the incident because 

of stress. An anonymous person 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 Miller’s Children’s Hospital stated K.A. had 

bronchiolitis. The mother admitted to removing 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 the child was crying. The mother stated she 

was under stress because she could not find money received from her income tax. The 

mother stated her children have different fathers. She stated a person identified only as 

R.H. was Isaiah’s father. In an addendum report, 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 recommended the children not be released to the custody of the 

maternal grandmother. On March 7, 2012, the juvenile court ordered the children 

detained in shelter care pending the next hearing. 
5

3. Jurisdiction Report 

 On March 27, 2012, the social worker submitted a jurisdiction report. The social 

worker concluded the children’s mother lacked basic parenting skills and sound judgment 

to safely and appropriately parent them. The 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 maintained she had no identifying or contact 

information regarding Isaiah’s father. 

4. Due diligence declaration 

 The social worker submitted a due diligence 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 information. The social worker 

submitted a similar due diligence declaration regarding R.H. 

5. Status review report 

 On October 4, 2012, the social worker submitted a status review report. The 

social worker noted the mother tested positive for methamphetamines on May 30, June 

27, and August 21, 2012. The mother had attended 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. The mother’s attendance in the 

substance abuse program was inconsistent and she had not made significant progress in 

her parenting classes. The mother had indicated she was going to stop attending the drug 

and alcohol program until she was reminded it was necessary in order to reunify with her 

children. The mother had wanted to get a job and an apartment instead. 
6

 During visits, the mother overfed the children. 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 family reunification 

services be terminated for the mother. 

6. Section 366.26 report 

 On March 8, 2013, the social worker submitted the section 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 birth certificates for either 

child. No father visited the 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 remained in the foster home. The children 

were doing well and appeared very comfortable. The mother had been incarcerated on 

March 5, 2013, on felony charges. 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, “Children Isaiah [G.] and 

[K.A.] ha[d] visited once or twice with paternal cousins and godparents 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 recommended adoption for the children by the foster parents. 
7

III. DISCUSSION 

 The department moved to dismiss the appeal 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 the 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 appropriate 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 merely because his or her name and interest 

appear in documents filed with the court or are referenced in the judgment. (Ibid.)” (In 

re Joseph G. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 712, 715, fns. omitted.) We further explained in the 

context of an alleged biological father, “[A]n alleged biological father who is not a party 

of record in the dependency court has no standing 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.) Here, 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 provided notice of the dependency proceedings 

and this violated his due process rights. None 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 process 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 apprise him or her of the dependency proceedings 

and afford him or her an opportunity to object. [Citation.] The child welfare agency 

must act with diligence to locate a missing parent. [Citation.] Reasonable diligence 

denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and an inquiry conducted in good faith. 

[Citation.] [¶] However, there is no due process violation when there has been a good 

faith attempt to provide notice to a parent who is transient and whose whereabouts are 
8

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, 1418-1419.) 

 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 identifying information regarding Isaiah’s paternity. Isaiah’s birth 

certificate failed to identify a father. Cesar L. made no appearance nor was he ever 

mentioned at any point during the dependency 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 reasonable 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. All of his arguments in this regard are mere 

speculation. Cesar L. argues S.G. and R.G. are Isaiah’s paternal cousins. It is unclear 

from the record whether S.G. and R.G. are paternally 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 Isaiah, [S.G. and R.G.].” As noted, Isaiah’s father was unknown to 

the department and the juvenile court. The only paternal relationship listed is for K.A. 

Thus, S.G. and R.G. may be paternal cousins to K.A. and 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 diligence to identify Isaiah’s father. 

 Nor does any of the authority cited by Cesar 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 order terminating parental rights. (Ibid.) The appellate 

court found the alleged biological father had standing because he took immediate steps to 

become a party once notified of the dependency proceedings. (Ibid.) The Court of 

Appeal found, “He contacted the social worker, appeared at the next court hearing, 

communicated to the court that he might be the minor’s father and attempted to complete 

paternity testing.” (Ibid.) Paul H. is inapplicable. Unlike the alleged father in In re Paul 
9

H., Cesar L. did not appear in the dependency 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 earliest practical point prior to 

termination of parental rights 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 change 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 order terminating parental rights as to Isaiah 

and no due process violation has occurred. 

IV. DISPOSITION 

 The appeal is dismissed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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.