Filed 1/21/22 In re M.P. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE In re M.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G060346 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18DP0885, v. 18DP0886) V.C., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Mary Kreber Varipapa, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Donna Balderston Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minors. * * * In this juvenile dependency proceeding, V.C. (father) appeals from the denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition, in which he sought 1 reinstatement of reunification services as to his two daughters. He also appeals from a subsequent order terminating his parental rights as to one of his daughters, D.P. The court denied the section 388 petition at the prima facie stage without holding an evidentiary hearing, which father contends was error. Reunification services were originally terminated due to father’s continuing struggle with alcohol abuse, as well as his inability to secure stable housing. When he filed his section 388 petition, his on- again-off-again struggle with alcohol was unchanged. However, he had moved in with a girlfriend who was willing to house the children and thus, arguably, had secured stable housing. We conclude father failed to make a prima facie showing that reinstating reunification services was in D.P.’s best interests, when as an infant, D.P. had been placed in a stable home with loving caregivers who were willing to adopt her. However, his showing was adequate as to M.P., whose severe mental and emotional issues left her without a stable foster home or parental figures. Father contends the court further erred in terminating his parental rights as to D.P. He contends there was evidence to support the parental-benefit exception to adoption, and that the court’s analysis was legally flawed. We conclude the record does not demonstrate any error in the court’s analysis, and that, even if it had, any error was harmless. 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise. 2 FACTS 1. Detention and Jurisdiction (Aug. 2018-Sept. 2018) Minors M.P. (age 6) and D.P. (age 1) came to the attention of SSA in August of 2018 when officers from the Garden Grove Police Department found them alone in their mother’s house. D.P. was found with an open, partially filled can of beer in her hands. There were knives and cleaning chemicals on the kitchen counter, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals