In re S.S. CA4/2

INTRODUCTION

H.S. (father) appeals from a juvenile court’s order at the 18-month permanency

review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.22) terminating his reunification services and

setting a hearing under section 366.26 to consider the implementation of a permanent

plan regarding his daughter, S.S. (the child). Father contends that the court failed to

make the necessary finding that return of the child to his custody would create a

substantial risk of detriment to her well-being, and that there was insufficient evidence to

support a detriment finding. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2019, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services

(CFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child, alleging that she came within the

provisions of subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). The child was

10 years old at the time. The petition specifically alleged that father and the child’s

mother, T.S. (mother),2 failed to adequately protect the child from the conduct of the

child’s brother, L.J.,3 and that father and mother (the parents) had two previous

1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and…