W.R. v. Superior Court CA4/2


Filed 2/7/22 W.R. v. Superior Court CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO W.R., Petitioner, E077934 v. (Super.Ct.No. J280519) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Steven A. Mapes. Petition denied. James W. Tritt for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. 1 Steven O’Neill, Interim County Counsel, and Kaleigh Ragon, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. I INTRODUCTION Petitioner W.R. (Father) seeks extraordinary writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26,1 subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order made at a section 366.3 permanency planning review hearing terminating Father’s reunification services, denying return of his now two-year-old son L.O to his care, and setting a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26).2 He contends substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the return of his child to his custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to L.O.’s physical or emotional well-being. He further argues the juvenile court erred in ruling out the paternal grandmother (PGM) for placement. We do not find Father’s contentions meritorious, and we accordingly deny the petition. II FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2019, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) received a referral for general neglect of L.O. after then 15-year-old Mother, a San Bernardino County dependent minor, was picked up in San Diego by a trafficking 1All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2 K.O. (Mother) is not a party to this writ proceeding. 2 officer.3 Mother had given birth to L.O. in San Diego and following her discharge from the hospital several days later, she was transported to San Bernardino County Juvenile Hall due to a warrant for not appearing in court. L.O. remained in the hospital for seven days due to Group B Strep. Mother was guarded and would not provide contact information for Father. Mother had a history of substance abuse, defiance toward authority, human trafficking, running away from her group homes, and extensive trauma related to sexual abuse and exploitation. CFS detained L.O. on April 4, 2019, and filed a petition on behalf of the child under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support). The petition was later amended, deleting the subdivision (g) allegation and adding subdivision (b) allegations and a subdivision (d) (sexual abuse) allegation against Father. L.O. was formally detained from parental custody at the April 9, 2019 detention hearing. At that hearing, Mother identified Father as L.O.’s father, giving his name and contact …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals