Full Opinion

Filed 10/21/26 J.S. v. Superior Court CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX J.S., 2d Juv. No. B355716 (Super. Ct. Nos. 25JV00067, Petitioner, 25JV00068) (Santa Barbara County) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. J.S. (father) seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders terminating family reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing as to his children, D.S. and M.S., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We deny the petition. Facts and Procedural Background In February 2025, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) obtained a protective custody warrant for D.S. (born in May 2012) and M.S. (born in December 2014) based on allegations that father was incarcerated and had left the children in the care of his girlfriend. The Santa Maria Police Department responded to the girlfriend’s home after mother showed up and demanded the children get in the car with her. The children did not feel safe with mother and reported that she “smokes a bong” and possibly other drugs. When police contacted mother, she was “incoherent” and appeared confused when asked basic information, including the children’s birthdates. Police were concerned mother may be using substances beyond marijuana. A dependency petition was subsequently filed alleging father’s untreated substance abuse and substance abuse-related criminal history dating back to 2011. The petition further alleged that father had been the primary caregiver for the children due to mother’s untreated chronic substance use. However, he failed to obtain legal custody and did not provide sufficient legal documentation for his girlfriend to care for the children prior to his incarceration, despite his concerns about mother’s instability and substance use. In its detention report, CWS reported that father was currently incarcerated for fleeing a peace officer/reckless driving, and willful harm/injury to a child likely to produce great bodily injury. When CWS spoke with father’s girlfriend, Elizabeth R., 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 she expressed concerns that father and the children were homeless and that father was using methamphetamine prior to his incarceration. Father denied using substances and claimed mother was the one using substances and neglecting the children’s needs. Parents have an extensive CWS history with 44 referrals to the department going back to 2011 and a voluntary family maintenance case from October 2016 to September 2017. The juvenile court conducted a detention hearing. Father was not transported to the hearing despite a JV-450 Order for Prisoner’s Appearance. The juvenile court appointed counsel for father, ordered the children detained, and set the matter for a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. In April 2025, the juvenile court conducted the initial jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Father, who was present and out of custody, requested a contested hearing. At the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court sustained the amended petition and ordered family reunification services for father. In its status report for the six month review hearing, CWS recommended family reunification services be continued for father. CWS reported that father completed parenting education and secured employment but father failed to meaningfully engage in substance abuse treatment. Father was referred for drug treatment and testing twice in April 2025. On April 28, 2025, father tested positive for alcohol. Father missed three tests in May. He did not participate in support groups in either April or May. By September 2025, father had yet to engage in a full treatment program. At the conclusion of the six month status review hearing, the juvenile court ordered an additional six months of services for father pursuant to CWS’s recommendation. 3 In anticipation of the 12-month review hearing, CWS recommended the juvenile court terminate father’s services and set the permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. CWS reported that father had completed an intake with Grover Beach Drug and Alcohol Services (DAS) but was not forthcoming or transparent about his substance/alcohol use or his case plan requirements. DAS determined that father did not meet the medical necessity for treatment. He was subsequently placed on 30 days of testing. Father tested positive for alcohol on January 12, 2026 and January 16, 2026. When CWS asked father about the positive tests, father insisted that he did not have any issue with substances or alcohol. CWS explained that sobriety from all substances, including alcohol, was part of father’s case plan. In March 2026, father was rescreened for substance abuse treatment services and was again found not to meet the criteria for treatment. The program manager noted: “ ‘Client denied diagnostic criteria related to [his] substance use in the last 12 months. However, given recent confirmed alcohol use while involved with CWS and on formal probation, along with documented historical alcohol-related legal consequences, further monitoring and assessment may be clinically appropriate to ensure sustained abstinence and compliance with court and probation expectations. . . .’ ” Father was placed on 60 days of randomized testing. Father missed testing on March 19, 2026 and March 27, 2026. In July 2026, approximately 17 months after the children had been detained, the juvenile court conducted the 12-month review hearing. At the hearing, the CWS supervisor testified that father was not in compliance with the substance abuse part of his case plan. Although he enrolled in the Grover Beach 4 Program, father had not started the full program and was not currently testing. Father testified that he was “just told to participate in testing” and was discharged from the program in February 2026. Father admitted that he had a problem with alcohol in the past, including two prior DUI’s, but testified that he “addressed those issues,” is “attending [Alcoholics Anonymous] classes” and therapy, and is “ju[s]t trying to move forward here from [his] past mistakes.” Father also testified that he was “honest with the provider” and admitted he “was drinking like once or twice a month.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court stated that it could not find “a substantial probability or likelihood that either parent can resolve their sobriety issues and, consequently, the issues which negatively impact the children’s safety within the time remaining in this case.” The juvenile court therefore adopted the recommendations of the department, terminated family reunification services, and set the section 366.26 hearing. Discussion Father contends (1) his due process rights were violated because he was not transported in custody to the initial detention hearing, and (2) he subsequently engaged “actively and consistently” in reunification services. As we shall explain, neither contention has merit. Due Process Violation Allegation At the time of appellant’s detention hearing, Penal Code section 2625 “require[d] a court to order a prisoner-parent’s temporary removal and production before the court only ‘where the proceeding seeks to terminate the parental rights of [the] prisoner’ under [section 366.26] or Family Code section 7800 et 5 seq. or ‘to adjudicate the child of a prisoner a dependent child.’ (Pen. Code, § 2625, subds. (b), (d).)” (In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 599 (Jesusa V.).) For all other dependency hearings, the order for a parent to be produced from custody was permissive. (In re A.J. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 7, 19.)2 Here, the juvenile court issued an Order for Prisoner’s Appearance (JV-450). The record is silent as to why father was not transported to the hearing. This, however, does not amount to a due process violation. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be personally present at every type of court hearing. (Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 601.) As our Supreme Court has held, notice and opportunity to be heard are appropriate to the nature of the case. (Ibid.) Because father was not statutorily entitled to be present at the initial detention hearing, his contention that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that such “[d]eprivation [c]arried [f]orward,” is meritless. (Bold omitted.) Engagement with Reunification Services Father next contends he subsequently engaged with his family reunifications services, which should inform this court’s assessment regarding the juvenile court’s July 1, 2026 order. “At the conclusion of a 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court shall continue the case for up to six months if there is a ‘substantial probability’ a child will be returned to a parent’s custody. [Citation.] A ‘substantial probability’ of reunification requires the court to find that the parent: regularly contacted and 2 Penal Code section 2625 was amended effective January 1, 2026 to add new hearings where the dependency court must order a prisoner be transported. (Stats. 2025, ch. 274, § 1; see Pen. Code, § 2625, subd. (b).) 6 visited the child; ‘made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home’; and ‘demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of [the] treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.’ [Citation.] We uphold the court’s findings if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] We resolve all conflicts in favor of the court’s determinations, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold its findings.” (J.H. v. Superior Court (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 535 (J.H.).) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that father had not made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the children’s removal or demonstrated his capacity to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the children’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well- being, and special needs. Father’s case plan required that he participate in a substance abuse assessment and follow the recommendation of the program. However, father failed to adequately engage in services despite multiple opportunities, only intermittently tested, had several positive tests and missed tests. The juvenile court found that father’s progress was “minimal.” In light of this evidence, the juvenile court properly terminated services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing. (See J.H., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 535- 536.) Disposition The petition for extraordinary writ relief is denied. 7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. YEGAN, J. We concur: CODY, P. J. BALTODANO, J. 8 Michael L. Duffy, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara ______________________________ J.S., in propria persona, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Adam R. Crawford, Snr. Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.