(Super. Ct. No. JD229516)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Father, Pa. S., appeals the dispositional order in which the juvenile court denied him reunification services with his daughter, the minor. He contends the juvenile court erred in denying him reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 without having made a removal order or stating the factual basis for that order.*fn1 We affirm.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2009, the minor and her siblings were placed into protective custody as a result of severe beatings inflicted on them by father, father's threats to kill the children and mother, and father's long-term substance abuse problem.*fn2 Father's substance abuse problem increased the violence he inflicted on mother and the children. The children were removed from the home and the parents participated in family reunification services, including drug counseling and anger management for father. The children were ultimately returned to their parent's home and jurisdiction over the children was terminated in November 2010.
In January 2012, a new section 300 petition was filed, alleging father cut mother with a sword, attempted to stab the minor, and then stabbed himself repeatedly in the abdomen. Father was incarcerated and the minor remained in mother's custody. The court granted mother a temporary restraining order. Mother also reported she was filing for divorce. Father admitted the sword incident and indicated he wanted to again participate in reunification services.
The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) concluded father's behavior demonstrated he had not benefitted from the previously provided reunification services. Since father was now out of the home, DHHS recommended the minor remain in mother's custody and mother receive family maintenance services, while father be denied reunification services under the bypass provisions of section 361.5.
The juvenile court sustained the petition and found it was in the minor's best interest to leave her in mother's home and custody with family maintenance services. The juvenile court found father had an "extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and [had] resisted treatment . . . or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment . . . on at least two occasions." The juvenile court also found father was incarcerated and providing him reunification services would be detrimental to the minor. The court adopted the DHHS findings "to remove the child from the father, not from the mother" and found "having removed the child from the father the bypass provisions apply and the court will adopt the findings and orders as to the father to bypass services for him . . . ." The DHHS report does not contain findings regarding removal from father.
Father argues that the court improperly applied the reunification bypass provisions of section 361.5, because it did not make a proper finding "for removal of the child from the custody of the father." Father, however, acknowledges "the facts of this case would easily provide grounds for a properly memorialized finding . . . ." We agree that the juvenile court erred in failing to state reasons for ...