In Re Daniel CH

CAPACCIOLI, Acting P.J.

Daniel O.H. (Father) appeals from a decision in a juvenile dependency action involving his son, Daniel C.H. (Daniel). Father contends that the trial court denied him due process of law at a hearing combining a six-month review and a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 because: (1) the court improperly restricted the appointment and testimony of psychiatric experts; and (2) following the hearing, it improperly amended the supplemental petition by adding new issues not properly before the court. [1] Father also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him all visitation with his son. We affirm.

Father and Marsha H. (Mother) have two children, Heather, born May 1, 1972, and Daniel, born May 10, 1981. In the fall of 1985, Father and Mother were involved in apparently bitter divorce proceedings. (See In re Heather H. (1988) 200 Cal. App.3d 91, 93 [ 246 Cal. Rptr. 38 ].) Shortly thereafter, young Daniel made statements to his mother concerning his father that resulted in a section 300 dependency action. (See id. at pp. 93-94.)

During the dependency action, the juvenile court appointed Dr.…