In re E.G. CA4/2

INTRODUCTION

M.G. (father), the biological father of E.G. (the child), appeals from a juvenile

court’s disposition order finding that he was the child’s biological father and not his

presumed father. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2021, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services

(CFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of the child

and his half siblings, Ad.E. and Al.E.1 The child was nine years old at the time. The

petition alleged that he came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, former

subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and subdivision (g) (no provision for support). It

specifically alleged that the child’s mother S.G. (mother)2 had a substance abuse

problem, and father knew or should have known of the problem and failed to protect the

child. It also alleged that father’s whereabouts were unknown.

The social worker filed a detention report and stated that CFS received a referral

after mother tested positive for methamphetamines at the birth of Al.E. The social

worker interviewed mother, who reported that she was married to J.E., but was separated

from him. She also reported…