In re A.R. CA4/3

facts to those necessary to understand and analyze the issues before us.

3 Father’s contention that the social worker did not attempt to contact him in Mexico until June 7, 2022, is incorrect.

3 contact information for the children, but he lost the information. Father initially maintained consistent contact with the Agency, participated in the development of a case plan, and participated in a child and family team meeting. However, he later stopped contacting the children or the social worker, and his phone number was changed or disconnected. At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition, as amended, true by a preponderance of the evidence and found the children came within the court’s jurisdiction. At the disposition hearing, Father’s counsel submitted. The court found by clear and convincing evidence it would be detrimental to the children to vest custody with either Mother or Father and declared the children to be dependents of the court. Father’s case plan responsibilities consisted of general counseling, parenting education, a 12-Step program, an outpatient substance abuse program, and substance abuse testing. Father was approved to…