In In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, the mother absconded with the couple's 11-month-old son, P.S., after divorcing the father. The father searched in vain for the mother and P.S. over the years. Mother and P.S. resurfaced when the boy was 13 years old, and the juvenile court took him into protective custody because of the mother's mental illness. Visits with the father went well, but P.S. expressed ambivalence about living with father. The social worker was concerned about placing P.S. with the father because the father had a pending military deployment and would be away from home for three months, deployment was stressful for families, the father's wife would have primary responsibility for the couple's children in addition to caring for P.S., who the social worker described as a bored, homesick adolescent who did not want to live with her. The social worker thought the father's plan to homeschool P.S. was misguided because P.S. had been isolated by a mentally ill mother and needed greater socialization, and P.S. was not interested in father's religion. The social worker feared a frustrated P.S. would run away and get lost or hurt. The appellate court held the agency did not establish placement with the father was detrimental within the meaning of section 361.2: "The record leaves no doubt that Patrick is a competent, caring and stable parent. He was dedicated to serving his family, his community and his country. He had no criminal history, no referrals to child welfare services and no indication of substance abuse or mental illness. There are no other risk factors in his home. Patrick is very concerned about P.S.'s welfare. He paid child support every month for 11 years without knowing where his son was. He searched for him for years. When he learned of his son's whereabouts, Patrick immediately came forward and requested placement, attended all significant hearings in the dependency proceedings, visited and contacted his son whenever possible, looked into obtaining recommended services for P.S. and his family through the Navy and his church, and participated in recommended services." (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) The court also noted P.S.'s anxiety and diagnosis of adjustment disorder did not support a detriment finding without a showing the father was unwilling or unable to obtain recommended therapeutic services for P.S. The court noted that although P.S. was 13 years old and was entitled to have his wishes considered, his preference was not the deciding factor in the placement decision. P.S.'s resigned acceptance to living with father did not signify he would suffer emotional harm. The court noted "in view of P.S.'s age and the likelihood he would only become more attached to his caregivers, friends and school as time progressed and commensurately more resistant to moving, the court erred when it focused on P.S.'s short-term emotional needs. Instead, the court should have placed greater weight on the long-term benefits P.S. would gain from becoming an integrated member of a family that included a father, stepmother, brother and sister." (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265.)