Court Opinion

ID: 9353153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 00:03:52.546054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:49.999408
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/10/23 Byron K. 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    BYRON K.,
                                                                                             F085268
           Petitioner,
                                                                           (Super. Ct. Nos. JVDP-22-000014,
                    v.                                                             JVDP-22-000157)

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS
    COUNTY,                                                                               OPINION
           Respondent;

    STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY
    SERVICES AGENCY

           Real Party in Interest.

                                                   THE COURT *
         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; extraordinary writ petition. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
         Byron K., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
         No appearance for Respondent.
         Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Sophia Ahmad, Deputy County Counsel,
for Real Party in Interest.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
       Byron K. II (father) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450–
8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.262 hearing for January 17, 2023, as to his now 22-month-old daughter, G.K.,
and five-month-old son, B.K. III (B.K.). A.L., the children’s mother (mother) did not file
a writ petition.
       At a combined hearing on September 20, 2022, the juvenile court terminated
father’s reunification services for G.K. pursuant to a modification petition (§ 388) and
denied him reunification services for B.K. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1)) because he was
incarcerated with an eligibility for parole date that exceeded the maximum allowable time
to reunify. Father contends the court’s rulings were error because he is eligible for early
release. We deny the petition.
                   PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
       In February 2022, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency)
was notified that mother was arrested because she was driving a stolen car with then
11-month-old G.K. She also had an outstanding warrant from a previous stolen vehicle
charge. She admitted to the arresting officer that she was under the influence of Fentanyl
and was pregnant. She and father were married, and he was incarcerated awaiting trial on
charges of domestic violence against mother. G.K. was taken into protective custody and
placed in foster care.
       Father denied the domestic violence charges and stated he had been working
full-time and trying to get G.K. and his two-year-old daughter, Genesis3 , out of mother’s
care because he believed mother was using methamphetamine. He wanted G.K. placed

1      Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2      Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
indicated.
3      Genesis is not a subject of this petition.

                                              2.
with his mother. He did not know Genesis’ whereabouts. Genesis was found safe in the
care of her paternal grandmother and allowed to remain there.
         The agency filed an original dependency petition, alleging the parents placed G.K.
at a substantial risk of physical harm and/or neglect because mother abused drugs
(methamphetamine and Fentanyl), the parents engaged in domestic violence, mother lost
custody of two other children in 2012 and 2016 because of her drug use and failed to
reunify, and the parents were incarcerated and unable to provide G.K. support. (§ 300,
subds. (b)(1), (g) & (j).)
         On February 14, 2022, mother appeared in custody at the detention hearing.
Father was not transported because he was in quarantine at the jail. The juvenile court
appointed counsel for the parents, found prima facie evidence that G.K. was a minor
described under section 300, and ordered a hair follicle test for G.K. The court also
ordered supervised visits for the parents upon their release from custody and continued
the matter for a jurisdiction and disposition hearing on March 28, 2022 (combined
hearing). Mother was provided referrals for services and father was provided parenting
packets and information on how to engage in services while incarcerated.
         The results of G.K.’s hair follicle test yielded positive metabolites for marijuana,
THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine and heroin
(acetylmorphine). According to the doctor at the testing facility, the levels were “quite
high.”
         The combined hearing was continued and set as a contested hearing on April 28,
2022. In its report for the hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court deny
mother reunification services because she failed to reunify with G.K.’s siblings (§ 361.5,
subd. (b)(10) & (11)) and was incarcerated with no known release date. (§ 361.5,
subd. (e)(1).) The agency recommended against reunification services for father because
he was pending trial and facing a lengthy prison sentence. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).)

                                               3.
       Prior to the hearing, the agency filed an addendum report recommending an
additional basis for denying mother reunification services because of her conviction of a
violent felony (robbery pursuant to Pen. Code, § 211) on April 11, 2022. (§ 361.5,
subd. (b)(12).) Attached was the police report detailing the circumstances of father’s
arrest for domestic violence. While father denied the charges, claiming mother fabricated
them to get him arrested, mother described a brutal attack in which father threatened to
kill her and savagely beat her in front of Genesis and G.K. Mother had a swollen upper
lip, bruises on the inside of her left and right arms, a swollen right wrist and bruising on
the right side of her abdomen.
       Mother testified at the contested, combined hearing on April 28, 2022, and father
made an offer of proof that he denied the domestic violence allegations and anticipated
his charges would be dropped at a preliminary hearing scheduled for May 23, 2022. The
juvenile court sustained the allegations in the dependency petition, removed G.K. from
parental custody and denied mother reunification services on the statutory bases
recommended with the exception of section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).4 The court
declined to deny father reunification services without knowing his release date and
ordered him to participate in counseling, parenting, domestic violence and substance
abuse services available to him at his place of incarceration. A six-month review hearing
was set for October 13, 2022.
       On May 23, 2022, father pled guilty (infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or
cohabitant pursuant to Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to four years in
prison. He is not eligible for parole until November 2023.
       On July 1, 2022, counsel for G.K. filed a modification petition under section 388
(section 388 petition), asking the juvenile court to terminate father’s reunification

4      Mother challenged the denial of reunification services on appeal and we affirmed.
(In re G.K. (Dec. 19, 2022, F084310) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                              4.
services and set a section 366.26 hearing in light of his prison sentence. The juvenile
court set a hearing on the section 388 petition and continued it to August 26, 2022.
       Meanwhile, in July 2022, mother gave birth to B.K., who was placed in foster care
following his discharge from the hospital. The agency filed an original dependency
petition, seeking his removal on the same grounds alleged in G.K.’s petition with added
allegations regarding father’s extensive criminal history and the status of G.K.’s open
dependency case.
       B.K. was detained pursuant to the petition and a jurisdiction and disposition
hearing was scheduled for August 26, 2022. The agency recommended the juvenile court
deny father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) and mother
services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(7), (10) and (11).
       In a handwritten statement attached to the agency’s report, father asked the
juvenile court not to return the children to mother’s custody. In another letter he claimed
to be innocent of the domestic violence charges. He took the plea deal because he faced
25 years if he went to trial, and he did not trust a jury to make the right decision.
       At father’s request, a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing regarding B.K.
was set for September 20, 2022, and combined with the hearing on the section 388
petition. Mother was not present at the hearing. Counsel for the agency made an offer of
proof that father’s eligibility for parole remained November 2023. Father’s attorney
made an offer of proof that father had been delayed in starting services in prison because
he was in reception. In addition, father believed his parole date would be earlier when his
credits were calculated. He planned on completing the substance abuse program and
could be released on an ankle monitor. He had already been accepted to the Gospel
Mission’s New Life Program in Modesto. Father’s attorney argued that allowing father
to reunify would not be detrimental to B.K. because B.K. was placed with his paternal
grandmother.

                                              5.
       The juvenile court granted the section 388 petition, finding father’s prison
sentence was a change in circumstances and it was in G.K.’s best interest to discontinue
reunification efforts. The court adjudged B.K. a dependent child as alleged in the
petition, ordered him removed from parental custody, denied the parents reunification
services, and set a section 366.26 hearing as to both children for January 17, 2023.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Recognizing the importance of permanency for children, the Legislature placed a
limit on the duration of reunification services depending on the age of the child when
initially removed from parental custody. For children who were under the age of
three years when initially removed, the juvenile court may terminate reunification
services six months after the dispositional hearing. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B) & 366.21,
subd. (e)(1).)
       The Legislature also enacted statutes that allow for the denial of reunification
services in some cases. (§ 361.5, subds. (b) & (e)(1).) Relevant to this case is
section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), which allows the juvenile court to deny reunification
services if the parent is incarcerated and the court determines by clear and convincing
evidence providing reunification services would be detrimental to the child. In assessing
detriment, the court must consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-child
bonding, the length of the sentence, the length and nature of the treatment, the nature of
the crime, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered, the likelihood of
the parent’s discharge from incarceration within the reunification time limitations
described in section 361.5, subdivision (a) and any other appropriate factors. (§ 361.5,
subd. (e)(1).)
       Finally, the Legislature allows for the early termination of reunification services
under section 388 if it appears that a change of circumstance or new evidence exists that
satisfies a condition set forth in subdivision (b) or (e) of section 361.5, which justifies

                                              6.
termination of reunification services, or the action or inaction of the parent creates a
substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur. (§ 388, subd. (c)(1)(A)–(B).)
       We review the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services under
substantial evidence based on the evidence before it. (Francisco G. v. Superior Court
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 600.) We review the court’s decision granting or denying a
section 388 petition for an abuse of discretion. (In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209
Cal.App.4th 871, 881.)
       Here, the children were under the age of three years when they were taken into
protective custody; G.K. was 11 months old in February 2022 when mother was arrested
and B.K. was removed at birth in July 2022. Thus, the time in which father had to
reunify was very limited given their young ages. As father aptly points out, the juvenile
court’s decisions to terminate his reunification efforts as to G.K. and deny him
reunification services for B.K. at the combined hearing on September 20, 2022, were
based on his anticipated parole date in November 2023 and rightly so. Father had more
than a year left to serve his prison sentence, which precluded him from reunifying with
the children within the statutory time limit. Further, there was no evidence terminating
father’s reunification services in G.K.’s case and denying him services in B.K.’s would
be detrimental to the children, given their infancy and lack of parent-child bonding.
Rather, under the circumstances, their interests were best served by setting the matter to
select a permanent plan under section 366.26.
       In ruling, the juvenile court considered the assertion father makes in his writ
petition, i.e., that he was pursuing programs which could result in an earlier release.
Nevertheless, the evidence before the court at the time of the hearing was that father’s
parole date remained November 2023.
       We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s order denying
father reunification services as to B.K. under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) and we

                                              7.
find no abuse of discretion in the court’s granting of the section 388 petition and
terminating his reunification services as to G.K.
                                      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).

                                             8.