1

Filed 5/27/14 In re Sebastian S. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re Sebastian. S., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

Jorge S.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA 

COSTA COUNTY,

Respondent,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN 

& FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU et al. 

Real Parties in Interest.

 A141380

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. J11-00335)

Jorge S. is the father of Sebastian S., who was detained by the Contra Costa 

County Children & Family Services Bureau (bureau) in February 2011, and declared a 

dependent of the court in June 2011. The court ordered reunification services for Jorge, 

who did not appear at dependency hearings and was not able to be located by the bureau. 

After some sporadic contact with the bureau in 2012, Jorge began regular contact with 

the bureau and supervised visits with Sebastian in 2013. On February 24, 2014, Jorge 

requested a hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1section 366.3, 

 

1

 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory citations are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

subdivision (f), to determine whether he should be granted further reunification services. 

A hearing was held on March 12, 2014, and the court denied Jorge’s motion.

By way of petition for extraordinary writ of mandate, Jorge contends that the 

denial of his motion was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the court abused 

its discretion in denying that motion. We find no merit in Jorge’s arguments and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Jorge and Maria S. have three sons: Michael, born in 1993;2 Andrew, born in 

1995; and Sebastian, born in 2002. From 1994 to 2010, the bureau received eight

referrals for neglect and abuse concerning one or more of the sons. One of the referrals, 

for emotional abuse of Michael in 2001, was substantiated.

In February 2011, Michael reported Maria’s drug abuse to a person who informed 

the bureau. After investigation, on February 25, 2011, the bureau filed a juvenile 

dependency petition, pursuant to section 300, on behalf of Sebastian and Andrew,

3

alleging substance abuse, mental illness, domestic violence and neglect on the part of 

Maria, and substance abuse, domestic violence, and neglect on the part of Jorge. When 

the two younger brothers were detained, Michael reported that Jorge and Maria were 

separated and that Jorge was “largely homeless.” 

A social worker attempted to call Jorge to inform him about a February 28, 2011 

court date. Jorge returned the call and left a voicemail, but did not call back when 

requested. The brothers’ relative caretaker reported that Jorge called Michael and berated 

him for talking to the bureau. Jorge wanted to visit Sebastian, but the caretaker told him 

that he would have to talk to the social worker. Jorge stated his refusal to work with the 

bureau and made threats to the caretaker. 

On April 5, 2011, the court held a contested jurisdiction hearing at which neither 

Jorge nor Maria were present. The court sustained all allegations. Jorge continued to 

 

2

 We do not find Michael’s date of birth in the record, but an April 2011 

document indicates that he was 18 years old at that time. 

3

 Although Andrew was subject to the juvenile dependency proceedings, he is 

now over the age of 18 and Jorge’s petition does not involve him.
3

threaten the caretaker’s family and the caretaker obtained a temporary restraining order. 

The temporary order was reissued several times and Jorge never attended a hearing on the 

order. 

The court held a contested disposition hearing on June 6, 2011, at which neither 

Jorge nor Maria was present. The court declared Sebastian a dependent of the court and 

ordered reunification services for Jorge and Maria. The bureau had been unable to 

contact Jorge prior to the hearing. Jorge’s case plan, which the court adopted, included 

individual and family therapy, drug treatment and parenting education. 

In September 2011, the relative caretaker requested that Sebastian be removed 

from her care because of behavioral problems. Sebastian was placed in a licensed group 

home on September 29, 2011. 

The court conducted a six-month review on November 28, 2011, and continued 

family reunification services to both parents. Jorge’s whereabouts were still unknown 

and the bureau submitted documentation of its attempts to locate him. 

A 12-month review hearing was held on March 26, 2012. The bureau 

recommended termination of the family reunification services for Maria because she had 

not participated in her case plan. Jorge had not requested visitation during the review 

period and his whereabouts remained unknown. Although Jorge had not participated in 

his case plan, the social worker’s report did not, for unknown reasons, recommend 

termination of his reunification services. Following the hearing, the court ordered that 

reunification services be terminated for Maria. 

On September 10, 2012, the bureau filed a status review report. According to the 

report, Sebastian continued in long-term foster care at a group home. Jorge had contacted 

the social worker and met with her in June and July 2012. He was remorseful, reported 

that he had been clean and sober for several months, and wanted to visit his sons. 

Sebastian’s therapist initiated telephone contact between Sebastian and Jorge and a visit 

was planned at the therapist’s office. Jorge cancelled on the day of the visit due to 

transportation issues and made no further attempts to arrange visitation. The social 

worker then discovered that Jorge’s phone had been disconnected and that he no longer 
4

worked at the restaurant where he had reported employment. An absent parent search 

request was initiated in August 2012. 

On February 28, 2013, the bureau filed its next status review report. According to 

that report, since January 13, 2013, Sebastian had been placed in Michael’s home, where 

Michael lived with his fiancée, Lydia. Andrew was also residing in Michael’s home. 

Michael had located Jorge to inform him about surgery scheduled for Sebastian Jorge

then contacted the bureau in November 2012 and requested that visits be reinitiated. 

Despite attempts by the social worker, there was no contact with Jorge again until 

January 2013. The social worker told Jorge that supervised telephone contact might be 

initiated if he attended Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings 

twice weekly and submitted proof of attendance. 

At a hearing on February 28, 2013, the court limited the rights of Jorge and Maria 

to make educational decisions for Sebastian because “[r]eunification services for the 

child and family have been terminated or were never ordered.” Michael was appointed as 

Sebastian’s educational representative. The court continued a plan of long-term foster 

care for Sebastian. 

On August 5, 2013, Jorge appeared in court for the first time. On August 19, 

2013, the court elevated his status from alleged father to presumed father.4 

The bureau filed its next status review report on September 9, 2013. Sebastian had 

started separate supervised visits with Jorge and Maria. At the first visit with Jorge, 

Sebastian was reported to be “very elated” to see his father again. At the review hearing 

 

4

 Although it is irrelevant to the issues presented in his petition, Jorge believes 

that the court declared him to be the presumed father on March 26, 2012. We find 

nothing in the court’s order of that date that relates to Jorge’s status. The order does 

adopt the “findings & recommendations” of the bureau’s status review report dated 

March 26, 2012. Although the report states that Jorge is considered to be the presumed 

father, that statement was neither a finding nor a recommendation. However, there is no 

indication in the record that Jorge was ever denied the rights due to a presumed father. 

Indeed, the court ordered reunification services for Jorge on June 6, 2011, and only 

presumed fathers are entitled to such services. (In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 

437.)
5

on September 9, 2013, the court continued the plan of long-term foster case for Sebastian

and ordered that unsupervised visits with Jorge could commence if Jorge tested negative 

for drug use. 

On February 24, 2014, Sebastian’s court appointed special advocate (CASA) filed 

a report. The report stated that Sebastian was doing “very well” in his placement with 

Michael. The advocate met with Jorge, his girlfriend, Nicole, and their baby. She 

described Jorge and Nicole as “overly solicitous in their desires to reunite with 

Sebastian.” Jorge was described as exhibiting several characteristics of attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder that professionals had been trying to modify with Sebastian. 

Nicole reportedly appeared to be “tweaking”5during the meeting: “fidgeting, constantly 

jutting her jaw forward and licking her lips.” Although Jorge said he “would do whatever 

it took” to be with Sebastian, he had cancelled a recent visitation; missed a “WRAP 

meeting”6 where he could have seen Sebastian; and asked to schedule a makeup visit over 

the Christmas break, but only spoke to Sebastian over the phone. Although unsupervised 

visits might have been allowed upon clean drug testing by Jorge, he had not attempted a 

drug test. 

At a review hearing on February 24, 2014, Jorge requested a hearing, pursuant to 

section 366.3, subdivision (f), to determine whether he would be granted further 

reunification services. 

On March 12, 2014, the bureau submitted a status review report recommending 

that the court set a section 366.26 hearing to determine the most appropriate permanent 

plan for Sebastian Of the previous five Wrap meetings, Jorge had missed two, including 

the Wrap celebration party, even though the social worker had discussed it with him the 

 

5

 “Tweaking” refers to being high on methamphetamine. (http://

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tweaking.)

6

 “WRAP” or “Wrap” is used, but not defined, in the record. It appears to refer to 

“Wraparound” processes or services, designed to maintain youth with serious emotional 

and behavioral problems in their home and community. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Wraparound_(childcare).)
6

day before. Jorge had also not provided evidence of negative drug tests to the bureau. 

Michael wished to become Sebastian’s guardian. 

At a hearing on March 12, 2014, a social worker testified that the Wrap party that 

Jorge had missed was a “very important termination party” that was an “extremely 

important event” for Sebastian. She also testified that in addition to Jorge not having 

submitted to drug testing, the fact that Nicole’s infant son had tested positive for 

marijuana at birth was of concern in allowing unsupervised visits. Nicole had admitted to 

smoking marijuana during her pregnancy and also to a history of methamphetamine use. 

The social worker testified that after being placed with Michael, Sebastian “has 

made so many monumental milestones and has had such great success. Like I said, we 

successfully terminated Wrap. When he came into his brother’s home he still had quite a 

number of issues related to managing his anger. . . . [¶] We have not seen any of that for 

months. . . . [¶] He’s very, very bonded to [Michael]. He refers to his brother as his role 

model and his mentor and actually speaks very highly of his older brother and even talks 

about how much he misses him when he’s off doing his own thing. [¶] This is probably 

one of the most warming, heartfelt, amazing cases I’ve had of a reunification of a child 

with another family member not the primary parents. And Sebastian, to me, needs to be 

with his brother.” 

Jorge testified that he was willing to submit to a drug test, but could not afford to 

do so and needed the bureau to pay for it. However, he also admitted that he had not 

even called a drug testing company to find out about testing. Jorge said that he attends 

AA/NA meetings “[t]wice, one time a week” but he could not provide sign-in sheets to 

demonstrate attendance because they “got lost just recently.” When asked if he went to a 

parenting class, Jorge responded: “Ms. Wood gave me papers. I lost the papers, also.” 

After hearing evidence, the court commented that “father promises many things 

but delivers very few things. And that has been the history throughout the course of these 

proceedings. Since day one, quite frankly, father has stated he wishes to reunify but then 

he disappears for months on end. He has done virtually nothing to address the issues that 

brought this family before the court in the first place. [¶] And in reviewing the first 
7

volume of this file, it’s clear that Sebastian really suffered as a result of the issues that 

occurred in this family that brought this before the court. He has really come such a long 

way. And he’s done all that without any participation, quite frankly, of father. And he’s 

done that through the hard work of Sebastian, through the CASA’s commitment, [the 

social worker’s] commitment and now the brother’s commitment. [¶] And I, quite 

frankly, think it would be detrimental to Sebastian to drag this out and see if dad is going 

to get on board. . . . If dad can’t figure out how to get to those most important days in his 

child’s life by now it’s not going to happen. There’s no evidence that it’s going to 

happen. And it’s tragic that dad can’t put aside his own issues to be there for his son.” 

The court set July 10, 2014, for a section 366.26 hearing. 

On March 19, 2014, Jorge timely filed a notice to file a writ petition. The writ 

petition was filed on April 18, 2014. On April 23, 2014, we issued an order to show 

cause and the bureau filed its opposition on May 7, 2014.

DISCUSSION

Jorge contends that the juvenile court’s decision not to grant him further 

reunification services, pursuant to section 366.3, subdivision (f), was not supported by 

substantial evidence and was an abuse of the court’s discretion. We disagree.

We must first disabuse Jorge of a notion that informs the entirety of his petition. 

He asserts that “the record is clear that the [bureau] never provided [him] with any 

reunification services whatsoever” and that “[t]he evidentiary record is bereft of any 

indication that the father was offered or provided reunification services.” To the 

contrary, the court ordered reunification services for him and the bureau stood ready to 

provide them should Jorge have come forward during the time when he was entitled to 

such services.

“[W]hile the dependency scheme generally requires that parents be offered 

reunification services, the Legislature has limited those services to ‘a maximum time 

period not to exceed 12 months,’ which under certain circumstances may be extended to 

18 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) . . . The reunification period is expressly not tolled by 

the parents’ physical custody of the child, or by the parents’ absence or incarceration. 
8

(§ 361.5, subds. (a), (d) & (e)(1).)” (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 446, fn. 

omitted.) The reunification period is calculated from “the date the child entered foster 

care,” which is deemed to be the earlier of the section 356 jurisdictional hearing or 60 

days after the date on which the minor was initially removed from the parents’ physical 

custody. He states: “The facts of the instant case indicate that the father has been 

visiting regularly with his son, Sebastian. The evidence indicated that the child, 

Sebastian, was ‘elated’ visiting with his father, and that his father was appropriate and 

nurturing throughout the visits. Additionally, the record reflects that the father was 

gainfully employed on a full-time basis, had safe and spacious housing for Sebastian to 

visit or to live at, and that the father spoke with Sebastian every other day on the 

telephone, and demonstrated a commitment to reunify with his son.” 

We disagree with Jorge’s view of the evidence. Missing two of five scheduled 

Wrap meetings, including a party celebrating Sebastian’s termination of Wrap services, 

does not constitute “regular” visitation. Jorge’s residence cannot be considered safe for 

Sebastian while Jorge is unable to provide negative drug tests or document attendance at 

AA/NA meetings and while the bureau has well-founded concerns that Nicole, who lives 

with Jorge, may be using drugs. Sebastian may enjoy his supervised visits with Jorge, 

but that does not demonstrate that it is in Sebastian’s best interest to reunify with Jorge. 

Jorge consistently states that he is committed to reunification, but, as the juvenile court 

observed, he has failed to demonstrate that commitment in actions.

Jorge cites Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 253 for the 

proposition that “ ‘[w]here there is still reason to believe that a positive, nurturing parentchild relationship exists the parens patriae interest favors preservation rather than 

termination of parental bonds.’ ” He asserts: “In the instant case, the juvenile court’s 

order is antithetical to this stated judicial goal, and fails to promote the best interests of 

the minor.” We disagree. The question before the juvenile court was not whether Jorge’s 

parental rights should be terminated, but whether he should be granted further 

reunification services. Even without reunification services, a bond between Sebastian 

and Jorge may yet be preserved. To determine that granting Jorge additional 
9

reunification services is not in Sebastian’s best interest is not tantamount to termination 

of Jorge’s parental rights.

We find no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court and ample evidence that 

granting further reunification services to Jorge would not be in Sebastian’s best interest.

DISPOSITION

The March 12, 2014 order of the court, denying Jorge’s motion for additional 

reunification services, is affirmed. This opinion is final forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

_________________________

Brick, J.*

We concur:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.