Court Opinion

ID: 9893589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 20:03:18.608274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:35.938274
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/27/23 R.C. v. Superior Court CA5

                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    R.C.,
                                                                                             F086736
             Petitioner,
                                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 21CEJ300222-2)
                    v.

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO                                                          OPINION
    COUNTY,

             Respondent;

    FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    SOCIAL SERVICES,

             Real Party in Interest.

                                                   THE COURT*
            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Mary Dolas,
Judge.
            R.C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
            No appearance for Respondent.
            Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County
Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*           Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.
       Petitioner R.C. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules
of Court, rules 8.450–8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a disposition
hearing finding detriment to return, bypassing him for reunification services under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12)2 (violent felony), and
setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his son Josiah C. (born December 2020). E.L.
(mother) is deceased. Father seeks a writ directing the court to vacate the order setting a
section 366.26 hearing and provide him with reunification services. We deny the
petition.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY3
A.     Petition and Detention
       On May 5, 2023, law enforcement placed a section 300 hold on Josiah after
mother was found deceased in her bedroom. Father’s whereabouts were unknown.
Josiah was placed with maternal grandparents. Thereafter, the Fresno County
Department of Social Services (department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300,
subdivision (g), alleging mother left Josiah without any provision for support or care.
The department immediately submitted a parent search for father.
       On May 10, 2023, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. Father’s
whereabouts were still unknown. The court found a prima facie case had been
established, ordered Josiah detained, ordered father to have reasonable supervised
visitation, and gave the department discretion to schedule visits upon father making
contact with the department.

1      All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2      All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
indicated.
3      Josiah’s half sibling is part of the same dependency proceedings, but is not part of
this appeal; therefore, we omit facts related to the half sibling.

                                             2.
B.     Jurisdiction and Disposition
       1.     Reports
       In its jurisdiction and disposition report, the department recommended the
allegation in the petition be found true and that father not be provided placement or
reunification services. Father’s whereabouts were still unknown. The report detailed that
in a prior dependency case involving Josiah from 2021, father had been ordered to
participate in reunification services, but dependency was terminated and mother was
granted sole legal and physical custody. The report also contained father’s lengthy
criminal history. He had several felonies, including a robbery. The department
concluded there would be a substantial risk to Josiah’s physical health, safety, protection,
and emotional well-being if he were placed in father’s care, and there was no reasonable
means by which he could be protected if placed with him. The department had been
unable to assess him due to his whereabouts being unknown. Maternal grandmother had
reported father was violent and used to physically abuse mother and had many felonies.
Maternal grandmother had a five-year restraining order against him. She said Josiah did
not have a relationship with him.
       In an addendum report, the department again recommended the allegations in the
petition be found true and that father not be provided placement pursuant to
section 361.2, subdivision (a). Additionally, it recommended father be bypassed for
reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) (failure to reunify)
and (12) (violent felony). A family reunification panel met to determine the
appropriateness of offering father reunification services. Father confirmed he had failed
to reunify with Josiah in the prior dependency case. He said he did not participate in
services in the prior case because he had already been doing services through parole and
“was not going to do double services.” He reported he had participated in domestic
violence services and drug treatment, but did not provide the department with

                                             3.
documentation showing completion of such services. Additionally, although he had been
ordered supervised visits when mother was awarded custody, he did not visit Josiah. He
claimed he did not know mother’s whereabouts, but later stated she always called him to
ask for money. The department noted it was reported (by an unspecified source) that
father had not wanted to pay the visitation agency fees to visit Josiah. Father admitted he
had not seen Josiah in over a year. The panel determined father met the bypass criteria
under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (12).
       Even though father met the bypass criteria, the department was still required to
consider whether it would be in Josiah’s best interest for father to receive reunification
services. The department considered four factors: (1) father’s current efforts and fitness,
and his history; (2) the gravity of the problem that led to the dependency; (3) the strength
of relative bonds between Josiah, father, and maternal grandparents; and (4) Josiah’s need
for stability. Overall, father had not ameliorated the problems that led to the initial
removal, had not participated in services, and did not have a relationship with Josiah.
Due to Josiah’s young age, he required a safe, stable, and sober care provider. It did not
appear father could meet those needs as he had an extensive criminal history, which
included violent crimes, and had been in and out of prison. Maternal grandparents, on the
other hand, had been meeting Josiah’s needs. The panel concluded it would not be in
Josiah’s best interest for father to receive services.
       2.     Contested Hearing
       On June 14, 2023, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition
hearing where father made his first appearance, and he was appointed counsel. The
hearing was continued.
       On July 19, 2023, the juvenile court held a continued hearing, but father did not
appear. His attorney requested to set the hearing for contest on the basis that father

                                               4.
believed he had done services through parole, including parenting and domestic violence
services. The hearing was set for contest.
       On July 31, 2023, the juvenile court held a contested hearing, but only disposition
was being contested. Father was present. The court found the allegation in the petition
true and proceeded to disposition.
              a.     Father’s Testimony
       Father testified he had been previously offered reunification services in
February 2022, but at that time he was in engaged in other services in Alameda County,
including drug treatment, domestic violence services, and anger management services.
He said he completed a 52-week domestic violence program, which he believed was
offered through the Alameda County Probation Department. He said he learned a lot
though the domestic violence program, but learned to maintain his temper through Jesus
Christ. He also attended a 12-week “Open Path” family relationship course. There, he
learned that what you do in front of a child affects them in various ways. When he was
offered reunification services in the prior case, he was enrolled in a 1500-hour barbering
and cosmetology program outside of Fresno County. He said he could not participate in
services through Fresno County because he was already doing services elsewhere and
attending the barbering program. He said he was also drug testing often and driving from
San Jose to visit Josiah in Fresno. He claimed he attended visits regularly up until
mother obtained custody. He did not continue visiting Josiah afterwards because he did
not know mother’s whereabouts. He had not seen Josiah since the prior dependency case
had been dismissed and mother obtained custody. However, when Josiah was born, he
had him all of the time. He described their relationship as “intimate” and “spiritual.” He
said Josiah knew he was his dad and he loved Josiah.
       Father further testified that the most recent criminal matter he was involved in was
in December 2022. He had been working since August 2022 and had an apartment where

                                             5.
he lived alone and would be able to provide Josiah a safe and stable place to live. Father
admitted he had a conviction for robbery. However, he felt he had truly overcome his
past.
        On cross-examination, father stated he also completed a substance abuse treatment
program. He went back and forth providing conflicting testimony as to whether he was
ordered to participate in services in the prior case, denying he was ever court-ordered to
do services. He also acknowledged that in the prior case he never progressed past
supervised visits. Currently, he was participating in supervised visits with Josiah. The
last time he had unsupervised contact with him was when he was six months old.
        The juvenile court admitted into evidence a parenting certificate (Exhibit A) and
probation report from Alameda County (Exhibit B).
               b.     Ruling
        On August 16, 2023, the juvenile court issued its ruling, finding there was clear
and convincing evidence that placement of Josiah with father would be detrimental to his
safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being because there had been a prior
finding of detriment in the earlier dependency case. The court noted that father had
previously been ordered to participate in reunification services, but failed to participate.
Father’s services were terminated and mother was granted sole legal and physical
custody. Additionally, there was an active restraining order against father. Father
presented no credible evidence indicating that the issues from the prior dependency case
had been addressed. He also admitted he had not visited or had contact with Josiah in
over a year, even though he was permitted to have supervised visits.
        The juvenile court further found there was clear and convincing evidence that the
bypass provision under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) (violent felony) applied, and
that providing father with reunification services would not be in Josiah’s best interest.

                                              6.
The court did not find that father met the bypass criteria under section 361.5,
subdivision (b)(10) (failure to reunify).
       On August 16, 2023, father filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition.
                                       DISCUSSION
I.     Adequacy of Writ Petition
       As a preliminary matter, we address the adequacy of father’s petition. Rule 8.452
sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. “The petition must
be liberally construed and must include: [¶] (A) The identities of the parties; [¶] (B) The
date on which the superior court made the order setting the hearing; [¶] (C) The date on
which the hearing is scheduled to be held; [¶] (D) A summary of the grounds of the
petition; and [¶] (E) The relief requested.” (Rule 8.452(a)(1)(A)–(E).) Additionally,
“[t]he petition must be verified,” and it “must be accompanied by a memorandum.”
(Rule 8.452(a)(2)–(3).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe a writ
petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing
him or herself is not trained in the law. However, the petitioner must at least articulate a
claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the
petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review
the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
       Father’s petition is technically inadequate as he did not specifically identify the
legal error committed or develop arguments by citing to the record and legal authority.
Instead, in the area of the “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” (JV-825) form designated for
identifying the grounds on which the order was erroneous, father wrote the following: “I
was not given a fair trial. This case was hidden from me [a] majority of the time. I have
no [involvement] with the opening of [the] CPS case. There was no supporting evidence
of me being an unfit father this present day. This case [began] because mother and care
provider were involved in a [d]omestic [v]iolence [incident].” Nevertheless, where

                                              7.
possible, we liberally construe a petition in favor of finding it adequate for review.
(Rule 8.452(a)(1).) We do so in this case and construe father’s petition as asserting the
juvenile court erred in finding it would be detrimental to place Josiah with him and
bypassing him for reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12).
II.    Detriment
       “When a juvenile court orders removal of a child from the custodial parent, it must
determine whether there is a noncustodial parent who wants to assume custody. If so, the
court must ‘place the child with the [noncustodial] parent unless it finds that [such]
placement … would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child.’ (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) A finding of detriment must be made by
clear and convincing evidence. [Citation.] We review the juvenile court’s finding of
detriment for substantial evidence, ‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof’ in
the trial court.” (In re Solomon B. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 69, 74–75.)
       In the present case, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s detriment
finding. Father had previously failed to participate in reunification services, thereby
failing to address the issues leading to Josiah’s initial removal, which included
allegations of domestic violence with respect to father. The only evidence father
submitted showing he participated in services was a parenting certificate, but it is unclear
what that parenting class consisted of. Father had a long history of engaging in domestic
violence as evidenced by at least three domestic violence convictions with the most
recent occurring in December 2022. There was also an active restraining order against
father protecting maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, and
Josiah’s half sister that expires in 2025. As the court noted, father failed to present
evidence showing he addressed the issues from the prior dependency case. Accordingly,
we find no error.

                                              8.
III.   Bypass of Reunification Services
       “Section 361.5, subdivision (b) contains several reunification ‘bypass provisions’
permitting (or, in some cases, requiring) a court to deny a parent reunification services.
[Citations.] Once the juvenile court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a
case presents one of the situations set forth in section 361.5, subdivision (b), ‘the general
rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative assumption that offering
[reunification] services would be an unwise use of governmental resources.’ ” (In re
Christopher L. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1189.)
       The bypass provision at issue here—section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12)—applies
when the parent “has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5 of the Penal Code.” (§ 361.5, subdivision (b)(12).) Here, father was
convicted of a robbery, which is considered a violent felony within the meaning of Penal
Code section 667.5. “The court shall not order reunification for a parent … described in
[section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12)] unless the court finds by clear and convincing
evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2),
italics added.) “ ‘The concept of a child’s best interest “is an elusive guideline that belies
rigid definition. Its purpose is to maximize a child’s opportunity to develop into a stable,
well-adjusted adult.” [Citation.]’ ” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220,
1227.) “Nevertheless, precedent supplies certain relevant considerations when making a
best interests determination. For instance, ‘[t]o determine whether reunification is in the
child’s best interest, the court considers the parent’s current efforts, fitness, and history;
the seriousness of the problem that led to the dependency; the strength of the parent-child
and caretaker-child bonds; and the child’s need for stability and continuity.” (Jennifer S.
v. Superior Ct. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1124.) “It is the parent’s burden to prove
that the minor would benefit from the provision of court-ordered services.” (Ibid.)

                                               9.
“We review a juvenile court’s best interest determination in this context for abuse of
discretion.” (Id. at pp. 1124–1125.)
       Given Josiah’s tender age and need for stability, father’s limited bond with him,
father’s history of going in and out of prison, and father’s extensive history with domestic
violence, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that providing
father with reunification services was not in Josiah’s best interest.4
                                       DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court’s opinion is final
forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).

4       We note father attached several documents to his writ petition that are not
included in the trial court record. As a reviewing court, we cannot consider evidence that
is not part of the record. (In re K.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 450, 456 [“ ‘ “an appellate
court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment
was entered” ’ ”].)

                                             10.