In re R.W., No. G040791
The opinion in this matter (appealing orders limiting A.W. (mother)'s right to make educational decisions on behalf of the minor and ordering the minor placed in a residential treatment program in Laramie, Wyoming) filed on March 26, 2009 was certified for publication under Calif. Rules of Court rule 8.1105(c) upon a request by the SSA.
Opinion: G040791.PDF, G040791.DOC
In re J.W. (Unpub'd), No. D054099
R.W. appeals the findings and orders entered at a termination of parental rights hearing held under 366.26 W&IC terminating parental rights to her children. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asked the appellate court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The appellate court, noting that review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent", denied her appeal.
Opinion: D054099.PDF, D054099.DOC
In re. L.M. (Unpub'd), No. D054363
Rebecca G. appeals the findings and orders entered at a dispositional hearing held under 360(d) and 361(c) W&IC. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asked the appellate court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. The appellate court, noting that review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent", denied her appeal.
Opinion: D054363.PDF, D054363.DOC
In re J.J. (Unpub'd), No. A122599
J.J. (minor) was detained in October, 2006, following allegations under 300(b) and 300(g) W&IC, and was subsequently returned to P.L. (mother) under family maintenence. A subsequent petition under 387 W&IC was filed in 2007, alleging that mother had left J.J. with his godmother and that mother's whereabouts were unknown, and that J.J. had a fracture to his right femur which had been left untreated. J.J. was detained in P.'s care, and reunification and visitation were ordered for mother. At six- and twelve-month review hearings, the SSA reported problems with mother's compliance with both reunification services and visitation.
In July, 2008, mother filed a 388 petition seeking return of the minor and dismissal of jurisdiction, which was summarily denied, with the court finding that mother's efforts were "much too little, much too late" and that the evidence of changed circumstances submitted by mother was unverified. At the 366.26 hearing in August, 2008, the court terminated parental rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her 388 petition without a hearing, and that the juvenile court erred in finding that the beneficial relationship exception of 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply.
As to the denial of mother's 388 petition, the appellate court agreed that section 388 imposes no requirement that an attachment to the petition be separately verified, but held that, given the case's procedural posture and J.J.'s interest in permanency, there was no showing that additional testimony would have produced a different result and therefore no abuse of discretion in the denial.
As to the termination of parental rights, the appellate court explained that the juvenile court had terminated mother's parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that minor was likely to be adopted and that the permanence and stability offered by his continued placement with P. was in his best interests. In so ruling, the appellate court found, the juvenile court had properly determined that J.J.'s need for permanency and stability outweighed his relationship with his mother, and the juvenile court did not err in determining that the beneficial relationship exception did not apply.
The juvenile court's orders were thus affirmed, and the appeal was denied.
Opinion: A122599.PDF, A122599.DOC
In re Holly B. (Unpub'd), No. C058116
Cluster B. (father) appealed from an order filed by the SSA rescinding a prior order for a psychological examination of Holly B. (minor), and from findings and orders at a status review hearing continuing the minor in foster care.
He alleged that the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the SSA's order and thereby erred in finding that the Department provided adequate services to the minor. He also argued that the findings and orders were invalid because the court failed to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA
As to the recission of the order for the pyschological evaluation, the appellate court held that, because the purpose of the psychological evaluation was to aid the SSA in selecting determining an appropriate level of placement, Cluster lacked standing to challenge its recission.
As to the ICWA issue, the appellate court held that, because the orders issued at the status hearing did not affect the minor's placement in foster care or the termination of her parents' rights, the notice requirements of ICWA were not implicated in those orders. Therefore, the appellate court held this issue not to be cognizable on appeal.
The lower court's orders were thus affirmed, and Cluster's appeal was denied.
Opinion: C058116.PDF, C058116.DOC
D.S. v. Superior Court (Unpub'd), No. G041451
D.S. (mother) petitioned for extraordinary writ relief from the orders of the juvenile court referring the dependency proceedings regarding her three younger children, V.S., A.S. and S.S., to a permanent plan selection hearing.
She challenged the jurisdictional finding as to S.S., arguing that there was no substantial evidence of harm to support jurisdictional findings under 300(b) and 300(j) W&IC. Additionally, she challenged the order denying her reunification services as to all three of the children under 361.5(b)(10) W&IC, arguing that she made reasonable efforts to treat the substance abuse issues that led to removal of her four older children.
As to the first issue, the appellate court held that substantial evidence, including ongoing drug use and incarcerations, supported the court's finding of substantial evidence of harm. As to the denial of reunification, the appellate court noted that "[d]espite years of services, she repeated the same neglectful behavior with V.S. and A.S. that she had exhibited with the older children. She left her children with an unsafe caretaker, she engaged in criminal activity resulting in her incarceration, and she continued to associate with the father, who was a long-term drug addict and a negative influence in her life." The appellate court held that these facts supported the denial of reunification services.
Accordingly, the juvenile court's orders were affirmed, and the appeal was denied.
Opinion: G041451.PDF, G041451.DOC
E.M. et al. v. Superior Court (Unpub'd), No. G041223
Petitioners W.L., a prospective adoptive mother, and now four-and-a-half- year-old E.M. and almost three-year-old C.M. (the children), filed petitions for extraordinary writ challenging an order removing the children from W.L.'s home under 366.26(n) W&IC based on issues with the children not receiving proper nutrition and the prospective adoptive parent's failure to address those issues or to complete the requirements of the adoptive home study. Petitioners contended it was not in the children's best interests to be removed from W.L.'s care or separated from their sibling whom W.L. had previously adopted.
The appellate court, after noting that the decision in this matter was a difficult one, held that the juvenile court had properly weighed the factors mitigating both in favor of and against the removal. The appellate court concluded that the juvenile court's decision, after weighing all of the evidence, constituted "a reasonable exercise of discretion" and declined to disturb it.
The writ petitions were therefore denied.
Opinion: G041223.PDF, G041223.DOC
In re J.B. (Unpub'd), No. G040774
C.B. (mother) appealed an order denying her 388 W&IC petition seeking requesting placement of the minor with her or, alternatively, extended reunification services.
Mother's request was based on evidence that since December 2007 (about six months prior to the filing of the petition), she had been in a sober living program, had drug tested, and had completed a parenting class. The juvenile court had noted that mother's sobriety appeared "to be a work in progress[,] so that it is really more a showing of changing circumstances as opposed to an actual change in circumstances." The juvenile court therefore held that Mother's changes in her life did not yet "prove her situation had really changed" and denied her petition.
On appeal, Mother argued that her petition had in fact been supported by evidence of changed circumstances, including declarations in her favor. The appellate court, however, noted that Mother had to show not only changed circumstances, but also that her petition would be in the minor's best interests, and held that Mother had not met the second prong of the test.
As the appellate court explained, "Mother is in the beginning stages of resolving a 20-year drug problem. At the time of the hearing, she had only lived one month outside the sober living home and had a history of relapses. Mother's brief and recent sobriety does not support a finding the requested modification would be in J.B.'s best interests."
Accordingly, the juvenile court's denial of the 388 petition was affirmed, and Mother's appeal was denied.
Opinion: G040774.PDF, G040774.DOC
In re Wyatt N. (Unpub'd), No. D054091
Jay N. (father) filed a petition under 388 W&IC seeking to set aside the order at a six month review hearing terminating reunification for failure to comply with his case plan and setting a 366.26 hearing, and impliedly seeking to set aside the subsequent order at the 366.26 hearing (held the same day the 388 petition was heard) terminating his parental rights.
He contended that his circumstances had changed in that he had been clean and sober since for about ten months and had completed a parenting class. He asserted that it was in Wyatt's best interests to be with his biological father. Jay submitted a certificate showing that he had completed a 12-session parenting education program.
The appellate court observed that "Jay's modification petition did not contain facts showing that Jay could attend to Wyatt's needs without support or intervention during visitation, or that a mental health professional or social worker had concluded that Jay was now able to safely and appropriately parent Wyatt, or that Jay had continued to participate in a substance abuse treatment or a 12-step program." Accordingly, it held that the juvenile court had not abused its discretion in determining that Jay's petition failed to show a prima facie case for changed circumstances and best interests of the child.
The juvenile court's orders were thus affirmed, and the appeal was denied.
Opinion: D054091.PDF, D054091.DOC
In re J.M. et al. (Unpub'd), No. C058919
L.M. (appellant), the mother of eight minors, appealed from an order of the juvenile court denying her motion for substitution of appointed counsel. Claiming an irreconcilable conflict with trial counsel existed, such that ineffective representation by counsel was a likely outcome, appellant contended the juvenile court's denial of her motion was an abuse of its discretion, from which she suffered prejudice.
The appellate court held that "[b]ased on the record before it, the court's implicit determination that the conflict between appellant and her trial counsel was not irreconcilable was well within its discretion." It further held that, finding no abuse of discretion, it need not consider the claim of prejudice.
Therefore, the juvenile court's order denying the motion for substitute counsel was affirmed, and the appeal was denied.
Opinion: C058919.PDF, C058919.DOC
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment