CA1/4

I.

INTRODUCTION

After a contested hearing, the juvenile court found that A.V. (appellant) is not the presumed father of two-year-old N.V. (the minor). Appellant appeals this determination contending substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding. Viewing all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the order, as we must, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant was not a presumed father and therefore was not entitled to reunification services.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The minor was born in January 2012. The mother’s boyfriend, B.T., was present at the birth. After the minor’s birth, the hospital’s social worker reported that mother was planning to reside with her boyfriend, B.T., and his parents. The mother identified B.T., instead of appellant, as the minor’s biological father. On May 30, 2013, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) became aware of the minor when an anonymous party reported that the minor was residing in a trailer that did not have heat, electricity, running water, or a front door. The trailer was parked on a business property in San…