Opinion
F062862 Super. Ct. No. JD125381-00
10-04-2011
MARTIN G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Martin G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Louie L. Vega, Judge.
Martin G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at an uncontested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his eight-month-old daughter Serenity. 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
In November 2010, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) removed then one-month-old Serenity from the custody of her mother, Brenda, and filed a dependency petition alleging that Brenda placed Serenity at risk of harm by using methamphetamine and engaging in domestic violence with petitioner, Serenity's alleged father. Petitioner did not deny using methamphetamine and admitted hitting Brenda in the face with a remote control during an argument. He also expressed his willingness to participate in counseling but was concerned about attending hearings, explaining that he was undocumented.
Brenda did not file a writ petition.
--------
The juvenile court ordered Serenity detained, adjudged her a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services for Brenda. Petitioner did not attend any of the hearings and was denied services at the dispositional hearing in January 2011 because he failed to elevate his paternity status. Serenity was placed in foster care.
In June 2011, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Brenda's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court also found that petitioner's whereabouts were unknown. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends the juvenile court erred in finding that his whereabouts were unknown at the six-month review hearing. As evidence of that, he attached a letter from the social worker to him dated a week before the six-month review hearing advising him about Serenity's well-being and about the hearing. This letter is included in the appellate record. As a result of the court's error, petitioner further contends, he should be granted custody of Serenity or reunification services. For the reasons we now explain, we will deny the petition.
Although information of petitioner's whereabouts (i.e. the letter) existed at the time of the six-month review hearing, there is no evidence that it was before the court. It is not mentioned in the reporter's transcript for the hearing. Further, there was no one who knew of the letter that appeared at the hearing. Petitioner had not been appointed counsel because he never appeared at any hearing including the six-month review hearing. Further, the social worker who authored the letter was not at the hearing. Consequently, the only information that the juvenile court had with respect to petitioner's whereabouts was that they were unknown.
Further, petitioner fails to show how knowledge of his whereabouts would have caused the juvenile court to rule differently than it did. Had the court known of petitioner's whereabouts, it would have been concerned with whether he was provided notice of the six-month review hearing. The letter from the social worker to petitioner proves that he was notified but simply chose not to appear. In addition, even if petitioner had appeared, the court would not have returned Serenity to his custody or ordered reunification services for him because he never elevated his paternity status beyond that of alleged father. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 448-449.) For the reasons set forth above, we find no error and will deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.