CA Unpub Decisions

A modification decision.

This consolidated appeal arises from two notices of appeal filed by appellant Stanley F. Allen, in propria persona. The appeal filed February 17, 2012, arising from civil case No. BC443476 was dismissed by order of this court on July 24, 2013, on the grounds the appeal was from a nonappealable order. We now address the remainder of the consolidated appeal: the appeal filed February 29, 2012, arising from probate case No. BP049505.
Appellant presented a minimal record, consisting only of one volume of a clerk’s transcript containing documents primarily from the civil action (case No. BC443476), and no reporter’s transcript. We endeavor to set forth the material facts germane to our discussion from these limited sources.

Christian F., the father of Brendan F. (Father), petitions this court for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating his reunification services after a contested six-month review hearing and setting a selection and implementation hearing. He contends the juvenile court erred in finding the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) provided him reasonable reunification services. Specifically, Father complains the Agency failed to amend his case plan upon learning he was incarcerated at a county jail facility where services were not available; and failed to identify a therapist to conduct a psychological evaluation, as required by his case plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e).)[2] We disagree and deny his petition.

Defendant L.C. appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)), in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (Kelly).) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with Wende. We conclude that no arguable issue exists on appeal and affirm.
On July 3, 2012, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition (§ 602) charging defendant with one felony count of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (a)). On July 10, 2012, defendant entered a no contest plea to an amended count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (b)). At the dispositional hearing held on July 24, 2012, the juvenile court adjudged defendant a ward, ordered him to complete a six-month program at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), and imposed various terms and conditions of wardship.

Two weeks after the minor was ordered placed in the custody of her presumed father D.H., the minor alleged he sexually abused her. The juvenile court issued a protective custody order, and this court ordered a stay of the order placing the minor with D.H. The San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency), in turn, filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387[1] petition alleging sexual touching and risk of acute stress disorder, and the minor filed a section 388 petition seeking reversal of the custody order. After the Agency struck the touching allegation, the court granted both petitions. The court also determined D.H. had received more than 12 months of reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
D.H. has filed the instant writ petition challenging the juvenile court’s adequate services determination and order setting a section 366.26 hearing. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s findings of adequate services and substantial risk of detriment, and therefore deny the petition.

Petitioner J.F. (Father) was living with S.T. (Mother) in April 2011, when dependency petitions were filed in connection with Mother’s two children, alleging neglect due to her drug abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] § 300, subds. (b) & (g).) Both children were found to be dependents of the court. Father was declared to be the presumed father of the older child, K., although Father was determined not to be K.’s biological father, and he was granted reunification services. In an order entered 20 months later, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had been provided, terminated reunification services to Mother and Father, and found by clear and convincing evidence that return of K. to the parents would be detrimental. The court scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
On August 22, 2013, Father filed a notice of intent to file a petition for an extraordinary writ in this matter, but the petition was not filed until November because of delay in assembling the record. Father seeks an order directing the juvenile court to vacate its orders terminating reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing and to issue a new order providing for placement of K. with Father or Father’s mother (Ms. C.). Father contends the juvenile court’s finding of detriment was not supported by substantial evidence and the court abused its discretion in placing K. with nonrelative foster parents rather than with Ms. C. By order of November 6, 2013, we stayed the section 366.26 hearing pending resolution of this writ proceeding.
The factual circumstances underlying Father’s claims of error are known to the parties and are summarized in “Father’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ [Rule 8.452], Memorandum of Points and Authorities.”

Appellant Shawn S. appeals the juvenile court’s orders relieving his counsel and terminating dependency jurisdiction as to his son Ethan S., following the selection of relative guardianship as the permanent plan. He claims his son’s status as an Indian child constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, such that the court abused its discretion in dismissing dependency jurisdiction. We affirm.

Minor R.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s June 27, 2013 dispositional order following a contested jurisdictional hearing. Appellant’s counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether it contains any arguable issues. Counsel has notified appellant she can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received from appellant. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

R.P. appeals from a juvenile court order declaring him to be a ward of the court and placing him on probation upon a finding that he committed a misdemeanor second degree burglary by aiding and abetting a burglary. He argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding. After reviewing the record, as we must, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling, we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm.

G.D. appeals from an order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) after the juvenile court sustained an allegation that he possessed a firearm in a school zone (Pen. Code, § 626.9). Defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding. He also argues that the probation condition prohibiting association with known gang members is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We affirm.

Michael S. (father) appeals from a dispositional order made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1),[1] removing his children from his custody and placing them with their paternal grandmother. Father does not contest the dependency court’s finding of jurisdiction under section 360, subdivisions (b) and (c), acknowledging there “may have been sufficient evidence to support dependency jurisdiction.”[2] Rather, he contends the evidence was insufficient to additionally support the removal order. We affirm.

In this dependency proceeding, appellant C.K. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her reunification services as to her son L.K. under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). This provision states that a parent may be bypassed for reunification services if a court has previously terminated services because the parent failed to reunify with the minor’s sibling or half-sibling, and the parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems leading to that termination. Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that she did not make reasonable efforts after services were terminated for L.K.’s half-siblings. We affirm.

The minor K.R., the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency), and the presumed father D.H., all appeal from the juvenile court’s order of March 7, 2013, denying the minor’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] motion to vacate a prior order finding D.H. to be the presumed father, placing the minor in D.H.’s custody, and determining the Agency provided D.H. with reasonable reunification services. We affirm the order in all respects.