Court Opinion

ID: 9407926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:04:29.61802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.896989
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/10/23 In re Y.M. CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Y.M. et al., Persons                                    2d Juv. No. B320697
Coming Under the Juvenile                                  (Super. Ct. No. 20JD-00020)
Court Law.                                                  (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.D.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      Father appeals an order pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code1 sections 366.26 and 388, terminating parental

        All statutory references are to the Welfare and
         1

Institutions Code.
rights and identifying adoption as the permanent plan for the
children. Mother does not appeal. We affirm.
                               FACTS
      A.D. (Father) has two daughters, Y.M., born in March 2016,
and K.P., born in August 2018, (collectively the children). In
2018, Father was living with Mother and the children in San
Luis Obispo County.
                    Domestic Violence Incident
      The family came to the attention of the San Luis Obispo
County Department of Social Services (DSS) in November 2018
when law enforcement responded to a report of domestic violence.
Father admitted that he struck Mother, and he was arrested.
Mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order. Father
pled no contest to two domestic violence misdemeanors but fled to
Mexico before sentencing. A warrant was issued for his arrest on
May 22, 2019.
                       Detention of Children
      DSS had concerns about Mother’s ability to protect and
care for her children since September 2019. On February 6,
2020, DSS received a report that the children were living in
unacceptable conditions, their basic needs were not being met,
and they were being exposed to domestic violence.
      On February 20, 2020, a DSS worker visited the family
home. Mother was present with her children and her then
boyfriend. The home was filthy, in disarray, and smelled
strongly of trash. The only food in the home was a bag of frozen
broccoli and a half-gallon of milk. The home did not have
running hot water and the stove did not work.
      DSS detained the children in foster care on February 21,
2020. At the time of the detention the children suffered from

                               2
poor hygiene, emitted strong odor, and their feet were covered in
dirt.
                      DSS Contact with Father
       DSS began an investigation to locate Father. Initially, all
Father’s relatives would say was that Father was in Mexico.
       On February 24, 2020, DSS received Father’s contact
information from a relative. On the same day, a DSS worker
spoke with Father by phone. Father admitted that he moved to
Mexico in April 2019 and had not seen his children in over a year.
       When informed that his children were being detained from
Mother, Father said that he could not return to the United States
and that the children could not reside with him in Mexico
because of safety concerns relating to a drug cartel. He suggested
that the children reside with their paternal grandmother or their
paternal aunt Teresa.
       Father provided DSS with his mailing address in Ojinaga
Chihuahua, Mexico. In addition to the February 24, 2020, initial
contact, Father attended by telephone a child and family team
meeting with DSS on February 27, 2020, and a telephone
conversation with a DSS social worker on March 17, 2020.
                               Petition
       On February 24, 2020, DSS filed a petition alleging neglect
or failure to protect against both Mother and Father (§ 300, sud.
(b)(1)) and failure to support against Father (§ 300, subd. (g)).
Notice of the detention hearing was provided to Father by phone
on February 24, 2020. Father was designated as an alleged
father.
       The juvenile court conducted a detention hearing. The
court appointed Danielle Plevel as attorney for Father. Plevel,
however, was not in court. Attorney Theresa Klein stated she

                                3
was appearing for Plevel. Klein also accepted an appointment to
represent the children. Klein, representing Father, submitted on
the issue of detention. The court ordered the children detained.
                   Adjudication and Disposition
      Plevel appeared for Father at the combined adjudication
and disposition hearing in April 2020. Plevel said that she had
been trying to reach Father by telephone, text, and Whatsapp
messages, without success. Social worker Ashley Totah said
Father told her that he moved but he did not know his address.
She asked him to find out and call her back to let her know. She
had not heard from him and has tried numerous times to contact
him by phone without success. The juvenile court noted that
mail sent to Father had been returned.
      The juvenile court found that Father has had notice of
proceedings and made himself unavailable to the court, to DSS,
and to his attorney. The court proceeded without Father.
      A DSS report stated that several paternal relatives wanted
the children placed with them. They have begun the process.
However, the family lives in a two-bedroom apartment with other
family members and would not meet licensing requirements. The
report noted that the paternal grandmother is seeking other
living arrangements so that she can have space for the children.
      The report also noted concerns about the family’s alleged
involvement with a Mexican drug cartel, and that the family may
attempt to take the children to Mexico to be with Father. It is
also alleged that paternal family members have been physically
and emotionally abusive toward Mother and the children.
      The report refers to a telephone call between Father and
DSS in March 2020, before DSS lost contact with Father. Father
denied being in a drug cartel, although he previously admitted

                               4
that he had been involved. DSS asked Father about allegations
that a paternal aunt assisted in identifying and coordinating the
murder of people in Mexico by sending Father pictures of people
for him to murder. Father adamantly denied his sister’s
involvement but did not deny killing people.
      The juvenile court found Father to be an alleged father,
sustained the section 300 allegations in the petition, declared the
children to be dependents of the court, and ordered their
continued placement together in their existing foster home.
          Three-Month and Six-Month Review Hearings
      Father failed to appear at the three-month and six-month
review hearings. Mail sent to his last known address was
returned and numerous attempts to contact him by telephone
were unsuccessful. Father made no attempt to provide his
current contact information. Father remained an alleged father.
The children were ordered to continue to be placed with their
foster parents.
                        Nine-Month Review
      A DSS report for the nine month review hearing stated that
Father has made no effort to contact DSS and DSS’s efforts to
contact Father remained unsuccessful. Mother was struggling to
consistently engage in reunification services. Meanwhile the
children have bonded with their foster family.
      DSS recommended that reunification services for Mother be
terminated and that the matter be set for a section 366.26
hearing. DSS also filed a petition pursuant to section 388, asking
the juvenile court to implement those recommendations.
      At the nine month review hearing, held on January 20,
2021, Father appeared for the first time, 11 months after the

                                5
children were detained. Father gave his current phone number
and address in Paso Robles, California.
      Father told the juvenile court that he and Mother were
never married, but they lived together after the birth of both
children. He claimed he always held the children as his own.
Father also claimed that DNA testing done by DSS will confirm
that the children are his, and that his attorney will circulate the
results when he receives them. Father asked to be elevated to
the status of presumed father.
      Father wants the children placed with family members. He
claims family members started the placement process, but the
paperwork did not get into the case file, so they are going to
restart the process as soon as possible.
      The juvenile court postponed any decision to a trial
readiness conference scheduled for February 17, 2021.
                    Father’s Section 388 Petition
      In spite of the juvenile court’s express order that both
parents appear at the February 17, 2021, hearing, Father did not
personally appear. Instead, his attorney appeared for him.
      Father objected to DSS’s section 388 petition and filed a
section 388 petition of his own on March 17, 2021, requesting
presumed father status and reunification services. Father
provided copies of DNA testing showing him to be the biological
father of the children.
      In Father’s declaration in support of his petition he denied
that he is involved with a Mexican drug cartel. He explained
that a picture of him dressed in a military-type uniform and
holding a weapon was taken by the cartel to blackmail him and
threaten his family.

                                6
      Father admitted he left the children with Mother in the
spring of 2019. He claimed that he did not keep in contact for
their well-being. He did not want the cartel to know where they
were. Father moved back to the United States in January 2021
and intends to stay. He does not intend to take the children to
Mexico.
      DSS opposed Father’s petition. The opposition included
statements by Father that he knew about the children’s
dependency shortly after they were detained. Although he had
notice, he made no effort to visit them, to inquire of their well-
being, or to gain custody.
      Father testified at the hearing. He said he is currently on
probation from his domestic violence conviction. He is living with
a paternal aunt and is employed as a field worker.
      Father said he worked for a drug cartel when he was
kidnapped by them from May 2019 to December 2020. He
escaped from the cartel and is currently seeking asylum in the
United States.
      Father admitted that he had access to a telephone during
the time he was allegedly kidnapped. But said he was not
allowed to use it often and could only get messages to one sister.
He said the cartel made him change his phone number.
      Father also admitted that he has not spoken to either child;
has not sent financial assistance to Mother for the children’s care;
and has not given money to his relatives to pass on to the
children.
      The juvenile court denied Father’s section 388 petition.
The court declared Father to be a biological father but refused to
find him to be a presumed father. The court found that it had
been over one year since the children’s detention; Father did not

                                 7
initially request services; Father only requested placement with
relatives; Father voluntarily returned to Mexico; Father had
conversations with DSS, but never mentioned he had been
kidnapped; and the children had been in foster care for an
extended period of time.
       The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for August
2021. It advised Father of his right to file a writ petition. Father
did not file an appeal or writ petition.
           Paternal Aunt and Uncle’s Section 388 Petition
       On August 3, 2021, Father’s brother and sister-in-law filed
a section 388 petition seeking custody of the children. DSS
agreed that they met the legal qualifications. But the trauma the
children had suffered left them with special needs. The foster
parents were meeting those needs. The aunt and uncle did not
recognize the children’s special needs, asserting they were just
normal children. The children’s special needs made them
particularly vulnerable in the event of a change of custody. DSS
was also concerned about the ability of the children’s aunt and
uncle to set boundaries with Father.
       The children’s attorney also objected to a change in
custody. The children’s counsel argued that the children’s best
interest is to remain with their current foster parents and the
foster parents to be designated prospective adoptive parents.
       A DSS social worker testified the children have a strong
bond with their foster parents who have the skills and ability to
meet the children’s special needs. Moving them would be chaotic
for the children, especially in light of the trauma they have
already experienced in their parents’ care.
       The juvenile court denied the children’s aunt and uncle’s
section 388 petition.

                                 8
             Father’s Motion to Vacate and Writ Petition
      On March 4, 2022, Father made a motion in juvenile court
requesting that the court vacate all prior orders in the case. The
motion was based on Father’s claim that he was not served with
adequate notice of the proceeding.
      During the hearing on the motion Father’s counsel made
the following offer of proof:
      “[Father’s counsel]: Your Honor, the offer of proof is, if
called to testify, [Father] would say as to the – I believe there are
three meetings alleged – or communications alleged between
himself and the county. That he was not advised as to the court
hearing or the nature of the hearing. That he did not ever
represent that he wanted to give up custody of his children. That
he did represent he did not wish the children to be with him
when he was in Mexico. And that he further represented that –
would represent that he thought the question he responded to in
each of these times was, ‘Do you want the children placed with
family members, your family members, when you are in Mexico?’
      “The Court: And his answer to that question was, according
to the offer of proof?
      “[Father’s counsel]: Yes, it would be affirmative according
to the offer of proof. . . . Oh, and finally, he would testify that he
did not receive any notice of hearings until January of 2021.”
      The juvenile court asked opposing counsel if they
“accepted” the offer of proof. The children’s counsel replied, “I
believe that’s what he would say, Your Honor.” DSS’s counsel
objected that it is not consistent with Father’s prior testimony.
The court assured counsel that it had a transcript of Father’s
testimony. Then counsel assented.

                                  9
       The juvenile court denied Father’s motion to vacate all
prior orders. The court stated that Father has waived any
objection as to lack of notice by making a general appearance in
the case on January 20, 2021, and participating in the case since.
       On April 6, 2022, Father petitioned this court for a writ of
prohibition/mandate to order the juvenile court to vacate all prior
orders. We summarily denied the petition. Father’s petition to
the Supreme Court was also summarily denied.
                       Section 366.26 Hearing
       The section 366.26 hearing was held on April 20, 2022. By
then the children had been in the care of their foster parents for
over two years. The foster parents had been found to be de facto
parents.
       DSS reported that Father had a total of nine hours
visitation with the children. The children call him by his first
name except when instructed otherwise by Father. The children
have no parent-child relationship with Father. The children view
him as a friendly visitor. The children have a secure attachment
to their foster parents. Removing them from their foster parents
would result in trauma, significant grief, and loss.
       Father has an open child support case with a current
balance of $5,710.34 due for child support. Father paid $700 in
July 2021 and $518 in November 2021. Child support does not
continue to accrue because the children are no longer in Mother’s
custody.
       The juvenile court denied Father’s request to be elevated to
presumed father status, and section 388 petitions by paternal
relatives seeking custody of the children.
       The juvenile court found that there is no beneficial parent-
child relationship between Father and the children, and that the

                                10
benefits of an adoptive home outweigh any detriment to the
children in terminating parental rights. The court found that the
children are adoptable and terminated the parental rights of both
Mother and Father. The court identified adoption as the
permanent plan for the children.
                             DISCUSSION
                 I. Statutes and Standards of Review
       Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), provides that if the court
determines by clear and convincing evidence that a child who has
been found to be a dependent of the court is likely to be adopted,
the court shall terminate parental rights, and order the child
placed for adoption. We review an order pursuant to section
366.26 for substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of
fact could determine to a clear and convincing evidence standard
that a child is likely to be adopted. (In re Gregory A. (2005) 126
Cal.App.4th 1554, 1561-1562.)
       Section 388, subdivision (a)(1), provides that a parent or
other person having an interest in a dependent child may petition
the juvenile court to change, modify or set aside an order of the
court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the
court. We review an order denying a petition under section 388
for an abuse of discretion. (In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th
1075, 1079.)
       As we shall explain, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion, and the evidence compelled the only result the
juvenile court could have reached.
                               II. Notice
       Father contends he was denied notice of the proceedings.
Father relies on section 316.2. Section 316.2, subdivision (a),
requires the court to inquire at the detention hearing as to the

                                 11
identity and address of any presumed or alleged fathers. Section
316.2, subdivision (b), provides in part: “If, after the court
inquiry, one or more men are identified as an alleged father, each
alleged father shall be provided notice at his last and usual place
of abode by certified mail return receipt requested alleging that
he is or could be the father of the child. The notice shall state
that the child is the subject of proceedings under Section 300 and
that the proceedings could result in the termination of parental
rights and adoption of the child.”
       Here Father was given notice by telephone that the
children were being detained. His response was to change his
telephone number and address without notifying DSS, his
attorney, or the court. Thereafter, numerous attempts by DSS to
contact Father by telephone were unavailing, and written notices
sent to his former address were returned. Father deliberately
absented himself from the process from February 2020 to
January 2021. His excuse that he had been kidnapped by a drug
cartel is risible. Father cannot make it impossible to contact him
and complain he was deprived of notice.
       Father attempts to make much of his offer of proof at the
hearing on his motion to vacate all prior orders. In the offer he
makes the dubious claim that in spite of three telephone
conferences with DSS between February 24 and March 17, 2020,
including a child and family team meeting, he was not advised of
a court hearing or the nature of the hearing. Father claims that
the opposing parties agreed with the offer of proof. That is not
true. The children’s counsel agreed only that the offer reflected
what Father would say. DSS’s counsel objected that the offer
contradicted Father’s prior testimony. Far from stipulating to
any facts, opposing counsel made it clear that they were

                                12
contesting the substance of the statements made in the offer.
The juvenile court was free to reject part or all of the offer as
lacking sufficient verity. On appeal we presume the court
rejected the substance of the offer of proof. (GHK Associates v.
Mayer Group, Inc. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 856, 872.)
       Father argues without citation to authority that DSS had
the duty to search for him. But after DSS initially contacted
Father and advised him of the dependency proceedings, Father
deliberately disappeared. All DSS knew was that he was
somewhere in Mexico. Father has some parental responsibility.
He could not be bothered to fulfill even the minimal responsibility
of keeping DSS apprised of his current contact information. DSS
had no duty to continually track down a parent who has already
been identified, contacted by a social worker, and informed
regarding the proceedings. (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26
Cal.App.4th 436, 441 [once a parent has been located, it becomes
the parent’s obligation to communicate with the agency].)
       Moreover, Father is precluded from challenging the
detention, jurisdictional, and dispositional orders.
       A dispositional order of the juvenile court is final and
appealable. (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(a);
In re A.A. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1234.) This means we
may not inquire into the merits of a prior final appealable order
even when the issues raised involve important constitutional and
statutory rights. (Ibid.) Here Father did not appeal the
dispositional order. He is precluded from attacking the
detention, jurisdictional, and dispositional orders on the ground
of lack of formal written notice pursuant to section 316.2,
subdivision (a), or on any other ground.

                                 13
       Father argues that as an alleged father he lacked standing
to appeal. But an alleged father has standing to appeal if he
appears at the earliest practical point and attempts to join the
dependency proceedings. (In re Baby Boy V. (2006) 140
Cal.App.4th 1108, 1116-1117.) Here Father had notice of the
proceedings. Instead of appearing at the earliest practical point,
he rendered himself incommunicado and did not appear for 11
months, well after the dispositional order. If Father lacked
standing to appeal, it was his own fault.
       Finally, defects in notice may be forfeited when a parent
acquiesces to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and actively
participates in its proceedings. (In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d. 679,
689; In re Gilberto M. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198-1200; see
Ex parte Etherington (1950) 35 Cal.2d 863, 867 [mother’s
“personal appearance at the [juvenile court] hearing and her
participation therein without objection as to the timeliness of the
notice to her . . . constituted a waiver of any insufficiency in that
respect as a jurisdictional requirement”].)
       Here Father appeared on January 20, 2021, without
objecting to any defect in notice. Father fully participated in the
proceedings, including his filing of a petition pursuant to section
388. He did not challenge any defect in notice until March 4,
2022, more than one year after he first appeared. Father has
forfeited any claim of a defect in notice.
                        III. Attorney Competence
       Father contends he was not provided competent counsel.
We need not discuss each allegation of incompetence individually.
Suffice it to say, if there was incompetence, it was harmless by
any standard.

                                 14
       First, as we have explained, Father is precluded from
raising claims of incompetency that occurred prior to and
including the order of detention.
       Second, Father had the burden of establishing facts to
support that he was entitled to presumed father status. (In re
T.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1210 [“One who claims he is
entitled to presumed father status has the burden of establishing,
by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts supporting that
entitlement.”].) Voluntarily absenting himself from participation
in the case, including failing to contact his attorney, limited her
ability to act to raise his status. An attorney is not obligated to
guess what her client wants her to do. He cannot blame his
attorney when she did not know whether he would want to be
designated as a presumed father.
       In addition, to qualify as a presumed father, a father must
promptly come forward and demonstrate his full commitment to
his parental responsibilities – emotional, financial, and
otherwise. (Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 849.) The
juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the
father’s conduct both before and after the child’s birth. (Ibid.) A
father must promptly assume his parental responsibilities,
including a willingness to assume full custody of the child. (Ibid.)
       The trial court had good reason for not finding Father to be
a presumed father. Father abandoned his children by fleeing to
Mexico to avoid prosecution for domestic violence in California.
He had not contacted the children in over a year when DSS called
to inform him that the children were subject to dependency
proceedings. Instead of promptly demonstrating a willingness to
assume full custody, Father told DSS that he would not leave
Mexico and that the children could not reside with him there.

                                15
Then Father changed his telephone number and address so that
DSS could not contact him. He remained away for another 11
months while his children were in foster care and the dependency
case was proceeding.
      Father provided little or no financial support for the
children. During the dependency proceeding, there was an open
case seeking back support payments from Father.
      Finally, the agency did assess the paternal relatives for
placement even while he remained an alleged father. The
relatives reported that they had not seen the children for a year.
Placement was not approved with paternal aunt Teresa and
paternal grandmother because their housing “would not currently
meet the requirements” for placement. Paternal aunt Maria B.
and her husband Jose expressed interest in placement, but Jose
would not have passed a background check and they withdrew
their application for placement. Mother objected to the girls
being placed with paternal relatives because they had previously
mistreated the children and Mother, and she wanted her children
to remain in their foster home. There were also concerning
reports that the paternal family was involved with a drug cartel
in Mexico and that they may try to take the children to Mexico
where Father resided. Given Mother was to receive reunification
services, placement with the relatives was a concern because they
did not speak to Mother and did not get along with her which
would make reunification for Mother very difficult. Later, when
Father appeared, he reported he was living with paternal aunt
Teresa and paternal grandparents which would prevent
placement with those relatives. Finally, even after paternal aunt
Adriana and Uncle Ascension were reported to have had
appropriate visits with the children, and even though DSS

                               16
recognized that for “some children it may be in their best interest
to move from a Resource Family Home to a relative home, this is
not the case for [K.P.] and [Y.M.].” There was good reason not to
move the children from their foster home. There is no support in
the record that the paternal relatives were not properly assessed
for placement merely because the father remained an alleged
father. But even if that was true, again, Father’s status as an
alleged father was solely the result of his failure to participate in
the case.
       The children were young when they were placed with their
foster parents. Y.M. was three years old and K.P. was about 18
months old. K.P.’s foster family was the only family she knew. If
Y.M. had any memory of living with another family, the memory
would likely be dim and remote. The children were thriving in
their placement with their foster family. They felt safe and loved.
The children have special needs to which their foster parents are
attentive. The children are bound to their foster parents, and
their special needs make them particularly vulnerable in the
event of a change in custody. The juvenile court could not remove
the children from a loving and stable home and send them to live
with relatives whose relationship with the children is marginal at
best.
       Counsel, no matter how competent, can only do so much
when the facts point to a single conclusion. Here the facts
compelled only one rational conclusion: terminate Father’s
parental rights and allow the children to be adopted by their
foster parents. It would have been a gross abuse of discretion for
the court to order any other result.

                                 17
                       DISPOSITION
     The judgment (order) is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             CODY, J.

                             18
                    Linda D. Hurst, Judge

          Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

               ______________________________

     Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl, Angel and Sugerman, Jeremy
Sugerman and Anne H. Nguyen for Plaintiff and Respondent.