Filed 7/7/15 Jose P. v. Super. Ct. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

JOSE P.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

 B263335

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK99083)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry T. 

Truong, Judge. Petition denied.

Gina Zaragoza for Petitioner.

Office of the County Counsel, Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, and Navid 

Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
2

Jose P., the presumed father of two and one half year-old J.P. (the child), has filed 

a California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 extraordinary writ petition. The father seeks to set 

aside a dispositional order made on March 17, 2015, setting the dependency proceedings 

for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26

1

parental termination rights hearing.

This order followed the sustaining of a section 342 petition. The child had been removed 

from the father’s custody 23 months earlier. Ruling that the time for providing services 

had expired, the juvenile court denied further reunification services and proceeded to set 

a section 366.26 hearing. The father contends he was denied a contested hearing and 

such was an abuse of discretion. The father also argues he was not given notice the

juvenile court would not order reunification services. And the father contends a further 

period of reunification services was not contrary to the child’s best interests.2 We deny 

the petition.

First, the father’s contention the denial of a contested hearing was an abuse of 

discretion is forfeited by his failure to object in the juvenile court. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 

Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord, In re A.B. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1365-1366; In re 

A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605-606.) At the March 17, 2015 hearing, the father’s 

counsel, Gina Zaragoza, stated she did not receive notice the juvenile court would not 

follow the department’s recommendation. However, Ms. Zaragoza did not request a 

contested hearing. Also, Ms. Zaragoza did not join in the mother’s requests to continue

the matter for a contest and to file points and authorities on whether reunification services 

could be ordered. As father did not request a contested hearing, the contention on appeal 

is forfeited.

Second, the denial of further reunification services did not constitute an abuse of 

discretion. (San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court (2014) 227 

Cal.App.4th 215, 223; In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1229.)

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

stated otherwise.

2 Real Party in Interest, the department, filed a letter brief advising that, since its 

recommendation below was that further reunification services should be offered, it would 

not file a brief supporting the order for no further reunification services.
3

The maximum time period during which child welfare services, including reunification 

services, may be provided shall not exceed 18 months from the date physical custody was 

taken from the parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1), (3); see In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 

1154, 1165.) The 18-month time frame may be extended up to a maximum period of 24 

months only if the juvenile court makes 2 findings. Initially, the juvenile court must find 

it is in the child’s best interest to have the reunification services time period extended. 

And the juvenile court must find there is a substantial probability the child will be 

returned to the parent’s physical custody within the additional time period. 

(See § 361.5, subd. (a)(4); San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court, supra, 

227 Cal.App.4th at pp. 222-223.) In this case, the extension could have only been for

one month because that is all that remained of the 24 month period following the child’s 

detention. 

The father makes no contention that the child’s “best interests” required that one 

more month of services be provided. Nor does the father contend it was likely he would 

achieve reunification within one additional month. The father does not address the 

applicable law, section 361.5, at all. The child became a juvenile court dependent 

because he suffered from a fractured right tibia and healing and acute fractures of six ribs. 

All of these injuries were unexplained and deliberately inflicted while in the father’s sole 

care. To compound matters, the father had a history of domestic violence. Completion 

of a 52-week domestic violence and anger management program did not rehabilitate the 

father. The father was reunified with the child on January 24, 2015. The next day, the 

father severely beat the mother in the child’s presence. Photographs of the injuries 

depicted significant swelling and bruising around the mother’s eyes. Thereupon, the 

child was redetained. Moreover, the juvenile court’s new dispositional orders following 

the sustaining of the section 342 petition required the father to complete: another 52 

week-long domestic violence counseling program; anger management counseling; and 

individual counseling. The father’s visits were restricted to monitored visitation. Under 

these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably rule that there is no probability

the father would reunify with the child in one month. And, the juvenile court could 
4

reasonably find it would not be in the child’s best interest to participate in one more 

month of reunification services. Finally, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude 

that it was not in the child’s best interest to be reunified with the father, who has a track 

record of violent conduct. Accordingly, denial of one more month of reunification 

services without a contested hearing was not an abuse of discretion. 

The extraordinary relief writ petition is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.