From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ashley G.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Jul 15, 2008
No. B203132 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)

Opinion


In re ASHLEY G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMANDA G., Defendant and Appellant. B203132 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division July 15, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK24621

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

THE COURT:

EPSTEIN, P.J. MANELLA, J. SUZUKAWA, J.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 19, 2008, be modified as follows:

Mother argues these same facts would have supported a section 388 petition to try to obtain a different permanent plan or additional visitation before the permanency planning hearing, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of that option, or to pursue that option on her behalf. Assuming only for purposes of this argument that counsel should have filed a section 388 petition, in order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, mother also must show that, but for the error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 628.) She has not made the requisite showing.

The juvenile court was fully apprised by counsel’s offer of proof of all the factors that could have been presented in a section 388 petition—that mother had separated from the perpetrator, that she had completed ordered programs, and that she had been visiting successfully and regularly with her children. The court accepted these facts as true, yet found the children would not suffer detriment from termination of parental rights. It is not reasonably probable that had a section 388 petition been filed, the court would have found on these same facts that it would be in the best interests of the children to modify visitation or select a different permanent plan. There was no prejudice from counsel’s failure to file a section 388 petition, and thus no ineffective assistance of counsel.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

In re Ashley G.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Jul 15, 2008
No. B203132 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)
Case details for

In re Ashley G.

Case Details

Full title:In re ASHLEY G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Jul 15, 2008

Citations

No. B203132 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2008)