Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review No. JD116941-01. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
D.G., Jr., in propria persona, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
OPINION
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent court’s order issued at an uncontested dispositional hearing setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his son F. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is the biological father of F., who was removed from the custody of his mother L.R. in February 2008 within two weeks of his birth. At the time, F. was the seventh child born to L.R. Her six other children were either in permanent placement or living with relatives because of her physical abuse and neglect. At the time of F.’s birth, petitioner was in prison scheduled to be released in 2010.
L.R. did not file a writ petition from these proceedings.
In February 2008, at the detention hearing, the juvenile court appointed counsel for petitioner and L.R. and ordered F. detained. The social services department placed F. in foster care. Early on and consistently throughout these proceedings, F.’s foster parents expressed their desire to adopt him.
Over the course of the next four months at separate jurisdictional hearings, the juvenile court sustained original and subsequent petitions (§§ 300 & 342) adjudging F. a dependent child as a result of L.R.’s physical abuse of his half-siblings and her use of methamphetamine in April 2008. The juvenile court set the dispositional hearing for July 2008.
In its dispositional report, the department recommended the court deny petitioner reunification services because he had not elevated his paternity status beyond biological paternity and had not requested placement or services. The department also recommended the court deny L.R. reunification services. In addition, the department reported that petitioner’s mother applied to have F. placed with her but her application was denied.
Prior to the dispositional hearing, the case worker explained to petitioner the department’s recommendation to deny him reunification services and refer F. for adoption. During the conversation, petitioner stated he wanted to visit with F. so he could bond with him. The case worker told petitioner the court did not order visitation for him but that he could request it. Subsequent to that discussion, petitioner waived his right to appear at the dispositional hearing.
In July 2008, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing. Petitioner’s attorney submitted the matter on petitioner’s behalf and informed the court petitioner was not asking for placement or additional services, obviating the need for the court to enter a denial of services for petitioner. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered F. removed from L.R.’s custody, denied her reunification services, and set the section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in denying him what he claims are his rights to reunification services and visitation. In addition, he argues his attorney misrepresented his position by telling the juvenile court he did not want custody of F. or reunification services. We find no merit to his claims.
A mere biological father, that is, a man who has not elevated his paternity status to presumed father, is not entitled to custody of his biological child or reunification services, including visitation. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 449; § 361.5, subd. (a) & (e)(1)(C).) Nevertheless, the juvenile court may order him reunification services if it determines services would benefit the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).)
As F.’s biological father, petitioner had no right to reunification services or visitation. Further, given F.’s young age and lack of relationship with petitioner and petitioner’s lengthy prison sentence, it would not have benefitted F. to attempt reunification. Consequently, the juvenile court’s decision not to order them was not error.
Moreover, to the extent petitioner claims his attorney was ineffective for not asking the court to grant him custody and services, he must demonstrate how he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to do so. (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1180.) Since petitioner was not F.’s presumed father, he was not entitled to custody. Further, for the reasons stated above, reunification services would not benefit F. Therefore, even if petitioner’s attorney had requested custody and services on petitioner’s behalf, there is no reason to believe on this record the court would have granted his requests. Accordingly, we find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.