Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. Nos. JD116614 & JD116615. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee.
S.G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Hill, J.
Petitioner is the alleged father of minors, U.G. and K.G., the subjects of this writ petition. At an uncontested 12-month review hearing in April 2009, respondent court terminated reunification services for the children’s mother, T., and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief from the setting order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We will deny the petition.
T. did not file a writ petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
This dependency case originally arose out of Imperial County where, in May 2006, then four-year-old, U.G., and newborn, K.G., were taken into protective custody along with their two half siblings after K.G. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and allowed the children to remain in her custody under family maintenance. The court did not grant petitioner, U.G. and K.G.’s alleged father, any services. There is no evidence petitioner sought appellate review of the juvenile court’s ruling as to him.
T. continued to use drugs and moved the children multiple times between counties until she settled in Kern County. In January 2008, the Kern County Juvenile Court accepted the case and ordered family maintenance services for T. to continue. During this time, petitioner did not seek to elevate his paternity status.
In March 2008, a social worker from the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) received information that T. left the homeless shelter where she and the children were living and left the children behind. As a result, the social worker took the children into protective custody and filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) alleging T.’s substance abuse prevented her from providing the children regular care and stable housing. The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed the children from T.’s care and ordered her to participate in reunification services. The court denied petitioner reunification services because, as an alleged father, he was not entitled to them.
In April 2009, at an uncontested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated T.’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues he was erroneously denied reunification services. We disagree. In dependency proceedings, only a presumed father is entitled to reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) A biological father may be granted reunification services if the juvenile court determines reunification would benefit the child. (Ibid.) Since petitioner has not elevated his paternity status to presumed or biological father, he remains the children’s alleged father. An alleged father has no cognizable interest in the dependent child (In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1352) and is not entitled to reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) Consequently, the juvenile court did not err in not granting them to him.
Section 361.5, subdivision (a) provided in pertinent part: “[W]henever a child is removed from a parent’s … custody, the juvenile court shall order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child’s … statutorily presumed father.… Upon a finding and declaration of paternity by the juvenile court or proof of a prior declaration of paternity by any court of competent jurisdiction, the juvenile court may order services for the child and the biological father, if the court determines that the services will benefit the child.”
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.