In re S.S. CA4/2

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant, R.S. (Father) appeals a juvenile court order adopting a

permanent plan of legal guardianship over I., N., R., and S. (the children), and dismissing 1 the juvenile dependency petitions at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 2 hearing. Father objects to the juvenile court considering during the section 366.

hearing an inflammatory statement (“dangerous-activities language”) in the section

366.26 hearing report and not striking it from the report. He requests this court to reverse

the section 366.26 order and strike the dangerous-activities language from the section

366.26 hearing report.

Father argues his due process rights were violated during the section 366.

hearing because the juvenile court considered the dangerous-activities language and

permitted inappropriate attestations regarding the language by county counsel. Father

further contends that the juvenile court’s failure to strike the dangerous-activities

language from the section 366.26 report was prejudicial error.

We affirm the section 366.26 order entered on May 2, 2024, and reject Father’s

request to strike the dangerous-activities language in the…