Filed 9/9/26 In re N.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
In re N.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
E088185
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. J303828)
Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION
v.
P.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michelle Lauron,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel and Landon Villavaso, Deputy County Counsel
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Appellant P.M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating
parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26) as to his daughter, N.M. (the child). He
argues that San Bernadino County Children and Family Services (CFS) failed to provide
him with reasonable services; thus, the order terminating parental rights must be reversed.
We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2025, CFS filed a dependency petition on behalf of the child, who
was a few days old at the time. The petition alleged she came within the provisions of
section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Specifically,
the petition alleged that both father and the child’s mother, N.B.M. (mother)2 had
substance abuse problems, father and mother (the parents) engaged in domestic violence,
and they had a current dependency case concerning the child’s sibling.
The social worker filed a detention report stating that CFS received a referral
regarding the child, who tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The reporting
party stated that mother said she had a substance abuse problem and wanted help, but she
refused to provide the hospital with a urine sample. The reporting party further said that
mother had eight other children and did not have custody of any of them. The social
worker went to the hospital and spoke with the parents. Father denied using drugs or
1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise indicated.
2 Mother is not a party to this appeal. Thus, this opinion will focus on father.
2
engaging in domestic violence with mother. The parents were not married, but father
said he was the father of the child and their other child, R.M. The parents had an open
dependency case concerning R.M. in Los Angeles County (LA County) and were in the
process of reunifying with her. The social worker spoke with their LA County social
worker, who reported that R.M. was detained due to domestic violence and substance
abuse. She said the parents had not had contact with her since October 2024, and they
were not participating in the reunification process.
Mother reported that she and father lived at the property address listed in the
referral, but father denied that. Mother then clarified that they lived in a recreational
vehicle (RV), which they parked on the property, and a paternal aunt lived in the house.
The parents said they did not have an address since they parked their RV “‘here and
there’” and were trying to find an RV park where they could live fulltime. The social
worker reported that the parents shared a phone, and they provided her with their phone
number. The social worker gave mother notice of the detention hearing at the hospital
and gave father notice of the hearing over the phone, since he was no longer at the
hospital.
The court held a detention hearing on March 7, 2025, and the parents failed to
appear. The court detained the child in foster care and set the matter for a
jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
3
Jurisdiction Report
The social worker filed a jurisdiction report on March 28, 2025, and recommended
that the child be removed from the parents, mother be provided with reunification
services, and father be found to be an alleged father, not entitled to services.
On March 19, 2025, the social worker attempted to contact the parents at the
phone number they provided, but there was no answer. She left a voicemail message
requesting a return call.
On March 20, 2025, the social worker called the parents multiple times at the
phone number they gave her. However, the call went straight to a message that said:
“‘the subscriber you have dialed is not in service.’”
That same day, the social worker spoke with the parents’ LA County social
worker. The LA County social worker said she had been looking for the parents for the
last five months, and the only contact she had was when they responded to her emails
twice. She emailed them minute orders of the proceedings, and they responded with just
a thank you. The LA County social worker said that she submitted a due diligence search
for the parents and received some addresses and that she would provide them to the social
worker. The LA County social worker gave the social worker the parents’ email
addresses and the phone number of paternal aunt, M.M. The LA County social worker
also informed the social worker that the child’s sibling had a six-month review hearing on
April 26, 2025, and she would be recommending termination of reunification services, as
the parents had been missing since October 2024.
4
That same day, the social worker sent certified letters to the parents at a
Victorville address provided by the LA County social worker to give them notice of the
jurisdiction/disposition hearing. She also sent a certified letter to father at an address in
Hesperia3 provided by the LA County social worker to try and schedule an interview and
give him notice of the hearing. In addition, the social worker sent an email to the
parents’ email addresses provided by the LA County social worker.
The social worker also contacted paternal aunt S.M. and asked if she had any
contact information for mother or father and asked when she last saw them. S.M. said
she had the same number as the social worker had; however, she called the number that
morning, and it was disconnected. She said she usually spoke to father twice a day, and
she agreed to provide his phone number to the social worker when he called her. The
aunt also said the parents were homeless when the child was removed from their custody,
and she helped them get an RV. Consequently, they moved around frequently and did
not stay in the same location. On March 24, 2025, the social worker contacted M.M.
again and left a voicemail message asking for a return phone call.
The social worker reported that, as of the writing of the report, the parents had not
been cooperative and had not made themselves available to CFS or the LA County
agency. According to the LA County social worker, they had not participated in services
or visitation with the child’s sibling since October 2024. The social worker reported the
parents’ current whereabouts were unknown.
3 The record does not indicate the actual address.
5
On April 1, 2025, the social worker filed a declaration of due diligence noting her
efforts to locate father. The search produced 12 phone numbers and seven addresses,
including an address in Victorville, an address in Arizona, and two addresses in Los
Angeles. One of the addresses was 927 East 54th Street in Los Angeles (the Los Angeles
address).4 The declaration stated that “[a]ll phone numbers were eliminated” (not in
service, left voicemail message, no voicemail available, etc.) and that the social worker
sent notice of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing to the addresses on March 11, 2025.
The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on April 2, 2025, and the parents
appeared telephonically. The court noted this was their first appearance. They were both
represented by counsel. Father’s counsel stated that father was in receipt of the petition,
entered denials on his behalf, and submitted on the issue of detention. Counsel also
requested paternity testing. The court stated it would have counsel for both father and
mother submit a JV-140 Notification of Mailing Address form, so that it would have
updated mailing addresses for both. The court also said it would ask father and mother to
keep their mailing addresses updated with the court and the social worker, so they could
be given proper notice of future hearings. The court then asked mother a few questions,
and she responded that father was the child’s father, he had always acknowledged the
child as his, and she and father lived together, but were not married. Father confirmed.
Father’s counsel requested that father be elevated to presumed father status, receive
4 The Los Angeles address appears to be the address of the parents’ home where
the altercation which resulted in the removal of R.M. occurred.
6
reunification services, and have visitation with the child. The parents then asked for a
continuance, which the court granted.
That same day, father’s counsel filed a JV-140 Notification of Mailing Address
form, listing father’s address as 14622 Live Oak Street in Hesperia (the Hesperia
address).
On April 16, 2025, the social worker filed a memorandum with additional
information for the court. She reported that, on the morning of April 2, 2025, she
received a phone call and voicemail from father asking about the jurisdiction/disposition
hearing. The social worker contacted him, and he said he was the child’s father and
agreed to contact the social worker after the hearing to schedule an interview. However,
he failed to do so.
The social worker further reported that, on April 9, 2025, she had two missed calls
from the phone number the parents shared. She called the number, and a woman
answered. The social worker asked for father, and a male got on the phone, identified
himself as father, and said, “‘She just wants to see the baby.’” The social worker
scheduled an interview for the parents on April 11, 2025. She called them on April 10,
2025, twice to confirm the interview and left voicemails but did not receive a call back.
She called the parents again on April 11, 2025, about 20 minutes before the scheduled
interview, to ask if they were still coming. Father said he was in Woodland Hills, and it
would take him two hours to get there, so he asked to reschedule for another day. The
social worker rescheduled the interview for April 14, 2025, and told father to let her
know if he could not make it, and he agreed.
7
The social worker reported the parents did not show up for the interview on
April 14, 2025, or call to cancel. As of April 16, 2025, they still had not contacted her to
reschedule. Based on the parents’ statements at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the
social worker recommended that the court find father to be a presumed father and order
reunification services for him, as well as mother. She attached a copy of father’s case
plan, which included requirements that he participate in counseling, a domestic violence
program, a parenting education program, substance abuse testing, and a substance abuse
program.
The social worker filed another memorandum on April 17, 2025, and reported that
CFS received records from Maricopa County in Arizona regarding mother having her
parental rights terminated to the child’s half-siblings on December 20, 2023, and May 24,
2024. Thus, the social worker changed the recommendation to no reunification services
for mother, and services for father only.
The court held a further jurisdiction/disposition hearing on April 23, 2025. The
parents failed to appear but were represented by counsel. Mother’s counsel set the matter
contested.
The court held the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 7, 2025.
Mother did not appear, but father appeared by Zoom. Both were represented by counsel.
Mother’s counsel asked for a continuance so mother could be present, even though
counsel admitted mother had not been in contact with her. The court denied the
continuance. It then received the social worker’s reports into evidence, and counsel for
both mother and father objected to the recommendation to sustain the petition. The court
8
sustained the petition and adopted the most recent findings and recommendations,
declared the child a dependent, removed her from parental custody, ordered reunification
services for father, and ordered supervised visitation. It then set the matter for a six-
month review hearing on November 7, 2025.
Six-month Status Review
On October 23, 2025, notice of the six-month review hearing was sent by mail to
father via his attorney.
On October 29, 2025, the social worker filed a six-month status review report with
recommended findings and orders, including that the court terminate family reunification
services and set a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan for the child. The
social worker reported that father had not had any contact with CFS or visited the child
since the case was opened. She further reported that she had attempted numerous times
to contact father to discuss his case. She asked one of the paternal aunts if she had seen
father, and the aunt said no. The social worker stated she submitted an absent parent
form on October 8, 2025. The social worker reported that CFS had been unable to enroll
father in any services since his whereabouts were unknown. Thus, he had failed to
complete his case plan.
The court held a six-month review hearing on November 7, 2025. The parents did
not appear but were represented by counsel. The court stated the parents’ whereabouts
were unknown, and they had not visited the child or completed their case plans. The
court adopted the recommended findings and orders and added mother to the visitation
order. It found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been
9
provided to father, and there was no substantial probability that the child could be
returned to him within the statutory time frames. The court set a section 366.26 hearing
and ordered the clerk to mail the parents notice of their writ rights by first class mail at
their last known address.
After the hearing, the clerk signed a proof of service indicating that she served
notice of the writ advisements by either personally serving a copy to father and mother or
delivering a copy to a competent adult at their usual place of residence and mailing a
copy by first class mail. The proof of service did not list a mailing address for either
parent.
Section 366.26
On December 10, 2025, CFS filed an affidavit of reasonable diligence stating that
a registered process server attempted to serve father personal notice of the section 366.26
hearing at the Los Angeles address.5 The process server attempted service on November
23, 2025, November 26, 2025, November 29, 2025, and December 7, 2025. The process
server also mailed notice of the hearing to that address on December 8, 2025.
On December 12, 2025, the social worker filed a memorandum with additional
information for the court. She reported that she attempted to contact father on
November 13, 2025, but the number on file was no longer in service. She tried again on
November 17, 2025, and November 19, 2025 (presumably at another number), but father
did not answer, and she left a message for him to call back CFS.
5 The record does not explain why the process server attempted to serve father
notice at the Los Angeles address and not the Hesperia address.
10
On December 15, 2025, CFS filed a copy of the notice of the scheduled section
366.26 hearing, indicating it was mailed to father’s counsel and to father at the Los
Angeles address.
On March 3, 2026, the social worker filed a section 366.26 report, recommending
that parental rights be terminated and a permanent plan of adoption be implemented. The
social worker noted that the parents were not present at the six-month review hearing but
were represented by counsel; further, notice of the section 366.26 hearing was sent by
first class mail to them at “the last known address.”
The court held a section 366.26 hearing on March 9, 2026, and the parents were
not present but were represented by counsel. Mother’s counsel asked for the hearing to
be continued or set contested but admitted that she had had no contact with mother. The
court denied the request. The court noted the parents had made no effort to visit the
child. Father’s counsel also asked to set the matter contested and admitted that he had
not had contact with father since April 23, 2025. The court denied the request, again
noting there had been no visitation or contact with the parents. Father’s counsel then
objected to the termination of parental rights, with no affirmative evidence. The court
terminated parental rights and set adoption as the permanent plan.
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding That Reasonable Services Were Provided
Father contends the social worker did not provide him with a copy of his case plan
or attempt to provide him with any referrals. He points out that CFS presented no
evidence that it even tried to contact him at his designated JV-140 address (the Hesperia
11
address). Instead, the social worker appeared to have only attempted to call him using
the phone number previously used to speak with him. Father claims that “[b]y ignoring
the [designated mailing] address … the department did not provide reasonable
reunification services.” Therefore, he argues this court must vacate the order terminating
parental rights and reverse the order setting a section 366.26 hearing.6 We conclude the
court properly found that reasonable services were provided under the circumstances of
this case.
A. Relevant Law
“To support a finding that reasonable services were offered or provided to the
parent, ‘the record should show that the supervising agency identified the problems
leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems,
maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course of the service plan, and
made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved
difficult … .’” (In re A.G. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001 (A.G.); In re Riva M. (1991)
235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
“The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be
provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the
circumstances.” (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547 (Misako R.).) The
6 We note father’s initial argument that he did not forfeit his challenge to the
adequacy of the services provided and the order setting a section 366.26 hearing, despite
not filing a writ petition. We will assume without deciding that father has not forfeited
the challenge and will reach the merits of his second claim regarding the reasonableness
of services provided.
12
“adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of the [Agency’s] efforts are
judged according to the circumstances of each case.” (Robin V. v. Superior Court (1995)
33 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1164 (Robin V.).) The agency “must make ‘[a] good faith effort to
develop and implement a family reunification plan.’” (Ibid.)
We review a finding of reasonable services to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.) We consider
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. (Misako R., supra,
2 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.) The burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence is
insufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th
942, 947.)
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Court’s Finding
The record contains ample evidence to support the court’s finding that CFS
provided father with reasonable services. The adequacy and reasonableness of
reunification plans are judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Robin V.,
supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1164.) The reunification efforts made by CFS were not
unreasonable or inadequate under the circumstances here.
The record shows the child was removed from father’s custody due to his
substance abuse problem and the domestic violence between him and mother. The social
worker developed a case plan for him which included the requirements that he participate
in counseling, a domestic violence program, a parenting education program, substance
abuse testing, and a substance abuse program.
13
The social worker also made reasonable efforts to implement the case plan.
Notably, father asked for reunification services, and he appeared at the
jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 7, 2025, by Zoom, when the court declared the
child a dependent, ordered visitation, and ordered reunification services for him. Thus,
he was aware that the court ordered him to participate in services. Yet, he did not keep in
contact with CFS, much less avail himself of any services during the following period.
“‘Reunification services are voluntary … and an unwilling or indifferent parent cannot be
forced to comply with them.’” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1365,
quoting In re Mario C. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 599, 604.) Reunification services are not
inadequate simply because the parent is unwilling or indifferent. (In re Jonathan R.
(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1220; see also In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d
1448, 1463, fn. 5 [a social worker is not required to “take the parent by the hand and
escort him or her to and through classes or counseling sessions”].)
Father claims that CFS failed to provide him with reasonable services, since “it did
not even attempt to contact him at his designated JV-140 address to offer referrals and a
copy of the case plan.” Section 316.1, subdivision (a) provides: “Upon his or her
appearance before the court, each parent or guardian shall designate for the court his or
her permanent mailing address. The court shall advise each parent or guardian that the
designated mailing address will be used by the court and the social services agency for
notice purposes unless and until the parent or guardian notifies the court or the social
services agency of a new mailing address in writing.” “A parent’s designated permanent
14
mailing address is used by the court and the social services agency for notice purposes.”
(In re A.H. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 337, 348 (A.H.).)
The purpose of the court having the parent designate a permanent mailing address
is so he can be given notice of future hearings. (See A.H., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at
p. 348.) Father expressly states that he is not claiming a lack of notice, and he has not
cited any authority that the social worker was required to send a copy of his case plan or
his referrals to his JV-140 address.
Even if the social worker did violate section 316.1 by not mailing the case plan
and referrals to that address, no prejudice has been established, since father made little to
no effort to participate in the proceedings, including services and visitation. (See In Ryan
R. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 595, 599 [“if the court’s mailing could be said to have
technically violated section 316.1 because it was not addressed as Mother had specified,
no prejudice has been established”], disapproved on other grounds, as stated in In re A.R.
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 234, 251, fn 2.) The social worker set up interviews with father, but he
failed to show up or call to reschedule them. He also failed to appear at the six-month
hearing or the section 366.26 hearing or even keep in contact with his counsel.
We further note the social worker engaged in good faith efforts to locate and
contact father. Father reported that he and mother did not have an address since they
parked their RV “‘here and there.’” Paternal aunt S.M. similarly reported that they
moved around and did not stay in the same location. Father initially provided a phone
15
number, and the social worker called it multiple times; however, the phone went straight
to a message saying, “‘the subscriber you have dialed is not in service.’”7
In addition, the social worker attempted to contact father several different ways.
She contacted the LA County CFS, who provided an email address. The social worker
sent an email to that address, but there is no indication father responded to it. The social
worker also contacted S.M. to get contact information. S.M. said she had the same phone
number that the social worker had, but when she called it, the number was disconnected.
The social worker contacted her a few times to ask about father’s whereabouts, but she
said she had not seen him and did not provide updated contact information. The social
worker also performed an absent parent search for father, and filed a declaration of due
diligence, detailing her efforts to locate him. She attempted to contact him at 12 different
phone numbers. Many of the phone numbers could not be completed as dialed or were
no longer in service. She left voicemail messages with three numbers that were in
service; however, it does not appear the calls were ever returned.
We conclude that the social worker’s efforts to provide father with services were
reasonable under the circumstances of this case. (See Robin V., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1164.) However, he was missing for most of the proceedings and thereby chose not to
7 As previously noted, the social worker spoke with father at a time the phone
number given was actually in service. At that time, the social worker scheduled an
interview with the parents. On the date of the scheduled interview, the social worker
again called the parents approximately 20 minutes prior to the scheduled interview.
Father stated that he was about two hours away and asked to reschedule the appointment.
The social worker complied with the request and rescheduled the interview. On the
rescheduled date, the parents did not appear, nor did they call to cancel the appointment.
16
participate in his case plan, despite CFS’s efforts to locate him and engage with him.
Father cannot now blame the consequences of his inaction on CFS. Ultimately, he has
given us no valid reason to reverse the orders terminating his parental rights and setting a
section 366.26 hearing.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
17