Filed 1/25/22 In re G.D. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- In re G.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C093850 Law. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STK-JV-DP-2019-0000225) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.E. et al., Defendants and Appellants. J.E., the biological father (father), and N.A., the biological mother (mother), of the infant minor G.D. (minor), appeal from orders terminating their parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. Specifically, father and mother assert that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a mandatory paternity inquiry as provided by Welfare and Institutions Code section 316.2. 1 We disagree and shall affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Test results from two of mother’s prenatal appointments returned positive for amphetamine and marijuana. On April 6, 2019, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) was informed that mother tested negative for substances when she gave birth to the minor, but they were unable to test the minor’s urine sample because it was contaminated. The Agency social worker interviewed mother regarding concerns about the minor’s exposure to drugs in utero. Mother identified S.D., who was present during the interview, as the minor’s father and part of her support system. Mother reported that she had an “on and off” relationship with the minor’s purported father, S.D. The reporting party stated that S.D. did visit mother and the minor in the hospital. For his part, S.D. told the social worker that he signed the declaration of paternity. He denied knowledge of mother’s drug use because they “were broken up during the pregnancy for a little bit,” but noted that mother was currently sober. On April 18, 2019, mother advised the social worker that an incident of domestic violence had occurred between her and S.D. The social worker then obtained a protective custody order due to mother’s lack of follow through with the safety plan. At the subsequent detention hearing, S.D. again affirmed that he was the minor’s father. The juvenile court found that S.D. was an alleged father because he claimed he signed the declaration of paternity but could not provide a copy. At the jurisdictional hearing, the Agency informed the court that a copy of the minor’s birth certificate was obtained but did not list anyone as the minor’s father. The court ordered DNA testing for S.D. At a subsequent jurisdictional hearing, mother submitted on jurisdiction and the court found the allegations of the petition true and ordered mother to be assessed by the drug court. The Agency informed the court that S.D. did not appear for paternity …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals