1 Filed 3/12/15 In re R.Z. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin)

----

In re R.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C077090

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. C.R., Defendant and Appellant. (Super. Ct. No. J06512)

Father (C.R.) appeals from findings and or ders made by the juvenile court at the
conclusion of the contested six-month-review hearing (W elf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e).), 1 at which time the court terminated fathe r’s services. Father disputes only the

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 court’s finding that he r eceived reasonable reunification services, arguing that his services were inadequate because his case plan failed to include “any type of mental evaluation by either a psychiatric or psycho logical professional.” We find the claim
forfeited and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND The minor, R.Z., and his mother both te sted positive for me thamphetamine when he was born in August 2013. As a result, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) investig ated the family. The Agen cy interviewed father and learned he had a history of marijuana, alco hol, and methamphetamine abuse; he also had five children with three different women, fi nancially supporting none of them. R.Z. and his half siblings were placed in protective custody. The Agency investigated further and learne d of father’s violent history. R.Z.’s mother reported being beaten by father in front of her children and watching father beat
the mother of one of his other children in fr ont of the other woman’s children. R.Z.’s
mother also recalled that when she was pregnant with R.Z ., father put his hand on her
stomach and said “he knew th e difference between a living, healthy baby and a dead baby.” He told her the baby was dead inside her and woul d be stillborn. Father reported to the Ag ency that he began using al cohol and marijuana when he was 11 years old. When he was 16 or 17, father was stea ling cars and using methamphetamine; by age 20 he was heavily involved in gangs. As a result of his criminal activity, father sp ent many of his years as a teenager and a young adult
incarcerated. The Agency filed a petition to detain R. Z. and his half siblings, alleging the
children were at risk of substantial harm because of mother’s and father’s substance abuse, as well as the parents’ failure to provide the children with adequate care. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g), and (j).) The juvenile court subsequently fo und R.Z. came within the3 court’s jurisdiction, sustained the allegati ons in the petition, and set the matter for disposition. Prior to the dispositional hearing, the Agency submitted its report and recommendations regarding the family. The Ag ency reported that father had a long history of substance abuse and a “significant history of viol ence.” Before father could reunify with R.Z., the Agency recommended father be requi red to successfully complete a drug treatment program, drug court, and a domestic violence offenders counseling program. At the time the disposition repo rt was prepared, father was enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program, was re gularly visiting R.Z., and would soon begin parenting classes. To help father meet th e goal of reunification, the Agency prepared a case plan, directing father to “attend and de monstrate progress in a County Certified
Domestic Violence Prevention Plan ,” comply with all orders of the court, consistently and appropriately parent R.Z., obtain and maintain suitable housing, and stay free from illegal drugs (including inpatient treatment). On November 19, 2013 , the juvenile court presided ov er the dispositional hearing. All parties submitted on the reports. The cour t ordered father be provided reunification services, adopting the case plan recommended by the Agency, and set a six-month review hearing for May, 2014. While the review hearing was pending, fa ther was discharged from his residential treatment program for failing to follow the rules. Father also tested positive for methamphetamine and was dismissed from the dr ug court program. He was discharged from the domestic violence program after miss ing several classes, and he was no longer visiting R.Z. on a consistent basis. In Apr il 2014, father was arre sted for driving on a suspended license and was convicted of battery on the mother of tw o of his children in the presence of those children. Based on fa ther’s conduct, the Agency reported he had “not made progress toward his case plan goal s. [Father] is refusing involvement in the programs that have been offered to him as he has exhibited very little level of4 participation in every single program within his case plan.” The Agency recommended terminating his services at the upcoming six-mont h hearing. The parties appeared before the juvenile court for the review hearing on May 29, 2014. At the conclusion of that hearing, th e juvenile court found clear and convincing
evidence that R.Z. would be at substantial ri sk of danger if returned to his parents’ custody, and there were no alternative means to protect R.Z. other than his continued removal from both parents. Father contes ted the Agency’s recommendation that his services be terminated; accordin gly, the court set a contested review hearing. The court held the hearing on July 22, 2014; at the hearing father testified and admitted he relapsed in February 2014, but claimed he had been cl ean since he was taken into custody in May 2014. He was currently living at a recovery house, attending church, and participating in parenting classes. He said he was drug tes ting regularly, was trying to get back into the drug court program, and was visiting with R.Z. The juvenile court found father had failed to comply with his ca se plan. The court noted father’s non-compliance with the drug court and counseling a nd his inconsistent visiting history. It adopted the Agency’s proposed findings and orders, including terminating father’s services. One of its specific written findings was that reasonable services were provided to father, “designe d to aid [father] in overcoming the problems which led to the deprivation or loss of custod y of the children.” Father appeals from the orders entered July 22, 2014.
DISCUSSION Father’s sole contention on appeal is th at there is insuffici ent evidence he was provided with reasonable services because hi s case plan did not include a mental health evaluation, which may have uncovered a mental illne ss that made him incapable of complying with the remainder of the case plan. He does not point us to where in the record he requested referral to such serv ices and was denied them, and we see no evidence that any such request was made. Nor does he point us to any evidence that he5 has or had such an illness. Nor does he c ite any authority that would mandate--or even permit--the juvenile court, the Agency, or th is court to assume su ch illness merely from
what he classifies as his “odd behavior”: his history of a ddiction and violence, particularly toward the mother s of his children. Nothing in the record supports his claim
of error. Further, although couched as a challenge to the finding of reasonable services, father’s claim properly translates as a challenge to the juvenile court’s dispositional order outlining father’s case plan and manda ting his compliance therewith. (See John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, 405 ( John F. ) [“[P]etitioners are not, in truth, complaining regarding the adequa cy of the reunification servi ces. . . . [T]h eir complaint is with the [juvenile] court’s failu re to [make an order] as part of the reunification plan”].) Father has forfeited his right to appeal the ad equacy of his case plan for multiple reasons, which we set forth immediately post

. First, father failed to object to the cont ents of the case plan at the dispositional hearing, when the case plan was first formally adopted. (See In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 222 [parties forfeit claims of e rror if they fail to raise their objection in the dependency court].) Second, father failed to object to the conten ts of the case plan at any point prior to the six-month review hearing. “If [father ] felt during the reunification period that the services offered [him] were inadequate, [he] had the assi stance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulati ng a better plan:‘ “The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal right s and of calling the judge’s attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections un til it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.” ’ ” ( In re
Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.)6 Third, the dispositional order in juven ile dependency matters is an appealable order that is final and binding. ( In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 532.) By failing to appeal or file a petition to modify the dispositional order, father has forfeited any complaint he may have regarding the conten ts of the case plan and the Agency’s compliance therewith. ( John F., supra , 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 405.)
DISPOSITION The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

BUTZ , J.