Opinion
F074731
02-28-2017
E.J., SR., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Paul M., in pro. per. for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 517526)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nan Cohen Jacobs, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Stanislaus Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Paul M., in pro. per. for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
E.J., Sr. (father) in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court's orders terminating his reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 388, subdivision (c)(1) and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his now 11-month-old daughter, E.K.J. Father contends the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) illegally removed E.K.J. from the hospital on a protective warrant and failed to provide him reasonable mental health services. We conclude father forfeited his claims by failing to challenge them on appeal from the juvenile court's dispositional order and dismiss his writ petition.
Welfare and Institutions Code, section 388, subdivision (c)(1) provides as relevant here that any party may petition the juvenile court to terminate reunification services prior to the six-month review hearing for a child who was under the age of three years when initially removed from parental custody if the parent has failed to participate regularly or make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, subd. (c)(1)(B).) Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Newborn E.K.J. (daughter) was placed under a protective medical hold in February 2016 by the agency after she and her mother, Ashley, tested positive for opiates. Approximately a year before, the agency took Ashley and father's one-month-old son, E.J., Jr. (son), into protective custody because Ashley and father engaged in domestic violence in the child's presence. After six months of reunification efforts, the juvenile court terminated Ashley's court-ordered services for failure to comply but continued services for father despite his slow progress. His main obstacles were his codependent relationship with Ashley and the deceitful and manipulative behavior he employed to maintain it. To assist him, the court had ordered the agency to provide him individual counseling focused specifically on those aspects of his behavior. However, he continued his pattern of deceit. Consequently, the agency was recommending the court terminate his reunification services at the upcoming 12-month review hearing.
In June 2016, at a contested 12-month review hearing as to the son, the juvenile court found the agency failed to provide father reasonable reunification services for a period of two months and continued the hearing to August. Father appealed, arguing in part the agency was unreasonable for not providing him a psychological evaluation. Two months later, when the juvenile court terminated father's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing, father filed an extraordinary writ petition raising the same issues. We consolidated father's appeal and writ petition and affirmed. (In re E.J. (Dec. 16, 2016, F074067) [nonpub. opn.].)
On the court's own motion, we take judicial notice of our unpublished opinion in that case. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(1).) --------
Meanwhile, in July 2016, the juvenile court ordered the daughter removed from parental custody at a dispositional hearing and denied Ashley reunification services. The court ordered reunification services for father, including individual counseling geared toward codependency, lying and manipulative behaviors. The agency placed the daughter in foster care with the son. Father did not appeal the dispositional orders.
In September 2016, the agency social worker filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to terminate father's reunification services because of several incidents evidencing ongoing contact with Ashley subsequent to a protective order he obtained in June 2016. The juvenile court conducted a contested hearing on the agency's petition the following November and father testified. The court found the agency provided father reasonable reunification services and father's explanations for his contact with mother were not credible. The court terminated father's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the agency's initial removal of his daughter violated his civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He cites various United States Supreme Court cases and federal appellate cases in support of his contention. He fails, however, to develop the argument. More importantly, he fails to explain why we should not conclude that he forfeited any argument concerning his daughter's initial removal. The agency removed his daughter in February 2016 and the juvenile court ordered her detained. The following July, the court issued its dispositional orders. In order to challenge the manner in which the agency initially removed his daughter, father was required to raise it on appeal from the court's dispositional order. However, he did not. Consequently, he forfeited any argument regarding his daughter's detention. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150 [dispositional order is the first appealable judgment; unappealed dispositional orders are final and binding.].)
Father also forfeited any argument that the agency failed to provide him reasonable mental health services. At the dispositional hearing in July 2016, the juvenile court ordered the agency to provide him individual therapy geared toward his specific mental health needs related to codependency and lying and manipulative behavior. In his petition, father claims he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety but the agency did not provide him services to address those specific needs despite "many requests." Father did not, however, object to the nature of the mental health services ordered by appealing from the dispositional order. Nor did he subsequently file a section 388 petition asking the court to revise his mental health services to include treatment for PTSD and anxiety. Consequently, father acquiesced to the services plan as ordered and forfeited his right to argue the mental health services ordered were unreasonable.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.