The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellant J.C., father of the minor A.C. (born Sept. 2001), appeals from the juvenile court's March 2011 orders denying reunification services and reinstating its prior order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26, 361.5, subd. (e)(1).)*fn1  Father contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's order denying reunification services. We shall affirm.
In March 2007, the minor was living with her substance-abusing maternal grandmother when her mother was arrested for drug offenses.*fn2  In April 2007, the minor was placed in protective custody and the Calaveras County Works and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition alleging jurisdiction over the minor pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support).
Father was in county jail at the time. He refused to go to the detention hearing, as he wanted nothing to do with the dependency proceedings. He was later sent to state prison on a parole violation. He executed a waiver of reunification services in April 2007.
Father was not present when the juvenile court ordered reunification services for the mother at the May 2007 disposition hearing. In June 2007, the Agency filed a petition for modification (§ 388) requesting counsel for father and informing the juvenile court that his waiver of services was invalid because he did not have counsel at the time. Father requested reunification services, expecting to be released from prison in August 2007. He was appointed counsel in June 2007.
In July 2007, the Agency reported father owed $15,000 in child support and his reunification services were terminated for another child in an earlier dependency. The Agency recommended no services for father as he did not qualify for presumed father status.
The minor called the mother's current boyfriend her father. She was moved to a new foster home in May 2007 due to her aggressive behavior towards her schoolmates and foster siblings.
An October 2007 status review report related that the parents were unmarried and living together when the minor was born. Father was named as father on the birth certificate and held the minor out as his own. A paternity test was ordered in August 2007, but father had not made himself available for testing.
Father never responded to the social worker's calls after his release from prison. Since father had almost no contact with the minor during her lifetime and did not submit to a paternity test, the Agency considered him an alleged father.
Father did not attend the October 2007 six-month review hearing. Father's counsel reported having no contact with him. An April 2008 report noted father was now in Deuel Vocational Institution, and DNA testing determined he ...