In Re Sarah C.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 966 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 967 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 968 OPINION Paul D., the biological father of Sarah C., appeals orders denying his Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 388 motion and terminating his parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. On appeal, Paul contends he should have been considered Sarah's presumed father, the court erred in finding the department of social services (Department) used due diligence to locate him, the court erred in denying him reunification services and erred in applying an improper legal standard. We affirm. FACTS In June 1987, while he was in the Navy, Paul met Sarah's mother, Dawn C. Dawn was then married to Mr. C. who was also in the Navy. Around December 1987, Dawn told Paul she was pregnant with his child. Paul did not offer to help Dawn with her pregnancy in any way.…