Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County Nos. 510984 & 510985. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Patrick M. Keene, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Alice E. Mimms, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Kane, J.
The details of this case, including the physical and mental abuse R.F. (father) inflicted on three very young children, J.S., J.F. and S.F., and their mother, S.A. (mother), need not be recounted. The important fact is that father intentionally made his whereabouts unknown to the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the department) when the children were taken into protective custody on July 3, 2008, and throughout most of the dependency proceedings. He now contends the juvenile court was required to order reunification services for him when his whereabouts finally became known. We disagree.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) provides that reunification services need not be provided when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, “[t]hat the whereabouts of the parent or guardian is unknown.” At the August 2008 hearing, the juvenile court relied on this provision to deny father reunification services. Subdivision (d) of the same section, however, provides: “If reunification services are not ordered pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and the whereabouts of a parent become known within six months of the out-of-home placement of the child, the court shall order the social worker to provide family reunification services in accordance with this subdivision.” Father argues that he was entitled to services because his whereabouts became known to the department before the six-month deadline, which was on January 3, 2009.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The intent underlying section 361.5, subdivision (d) is quite evident. The provision was designed to afford an opportunity to reunify to a parent who desires reunification, when that parent’s whereabouts are unknown during the initial stages of the dependency proceedings, but become known within a reasonable period thereafter—six months from the out-of-home placement.
Here, it is clear that father wanted no contact with the department from the start of its involvement with his family. He intentionally made his whereabouts unknown, even though he was secretly in contact with mother and the paternal grandmother. Although father was not supposed to be visiting mother’s home, he did so frequently. Mother denied it to the social workers, but the children reported it. The social workers repeatedly attempted to reach father through mother. A social worker told mother that father could get services if he was interested. Mother told a social worker she would give father the social worker’s card. Social workers told mother that father needed to contact them. Mother said she would have him contact the social workers if she heard from him.
Father also knew that the department intended to take the children into protective custody. In fact, he made a rare appearance on June 27, 2008, when social workers first attempted to take the children into protective custody. Father approached the social workers and yelled at them to “‘get off [his] fucking property.’” Meanwhile, mother and the paternal grandmother fled with the children. After searching for the family, the department successfully took the children into custody on July 3, 2008. Mother told the social worker she did not know where father was and she had not spoken to him for a few weeks. But she said she would be able to contact him to relay a message regarding the current dependency proceedings. The social worker conducted an Absent Parent Search, the results of which were not yet available when the section 300 petition was filed a few days later. Father’s whereabouts were listed on the petition as unknown.
In September, while mother was in a program, she wrote a letter (which was intercepted) to father at the paternal grandmother’s address. The social worker then sent documents regarding the proceedings to father at the paternal grandmother’s home, in addition to the other addresses found in the search. On November 5, 2008, the paternal grandmother asked a social worker what father needed to do to visit the children. The social worker responded that all father needed to do was call the social worker and request visitation.
On November 5, 2008, a social worker read in the newspaper that father had been arrested. The worker sent father a letter in jail requesting that he contact the department to set up visitation and develop a case plan. Father did not respond. On November 20, 2008, the paternal grandmother attended a team meeting and requested a visit for father. The department made arrangements and the next day, the children visited father. Father did not request another visit. On December 22, 2008, the department received the postage-paid, preaddressed envelope back from father, but it contained a letter to his children rather than a response to the department’s request for communication regarding services. The social worker then sent father another letter in jail, but this one was returned because he was no longer in custody. After that, father again made his whereabouts unknown. On January 7, 2009, a search revealed that father had been arrested two days earlier. The social worker sent father notice of the pending hearing. On January 28, 2009, father was transferred from jail and made his first appearance in court.
This evidence supported the conclusion that father knew the department took custody of the children, that he had contact with both mother and the paternal grandmother, that he was informed of the proceedings, and that he was aware the department wanted to communicate with him regarding services. He simply chose not to come forward and participate in the proceedings. He chose to remain unavailable until his whereabouts were necessarily revealed when he was jailed. At that point, he was certainly “located,” but even then he chose not to respond to the department’s direct communication regarding visitation and a case plan. He was afforded an opportunity to partake in services, but he failed to act. Indeed, as soon as he got the chance, he made himself scarce again.
“The Department has a duty initially to make a good faith attempt to locate the parents of a dependent child. Once a parent has been located, it becomes the obligation of the parent to communicate with the Department and participate in the reunification process.” (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441, italics added.) Here, the department fulfilled its obligation of attempting to locate a parent who did not want to be located. When the department located him, it offered him the opportunity to participate and he declined. At no point was the department required to force reunification services on him, and the trial court did not err by not ordering those services for him.
Father’s complaint that the department should have done even more to locate him—while he was doing his best to be unlocatable—requires no response.
DISPOSITION
The findings and orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J.