In re E.M.
J.L. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts order finding him to be an alleged father of E.M. and denying him reunification services. Father makes three contentions: (1) that the court erred by denying fathers request for a paternity test; (2) that the court erred by finding that father did not meet the requirements for presumed father status; and (3) that the court failed to make the required finding of whether it would be in E.M.s best interests to grant father reunification services. The San Bernardino County Department of Childrens Services (the department) and counsel for E.M. oppose fathers arguments. Court affirm the order.
Comments on In re E.M.