Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Super. Ct. No. JV-45062
Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Warren R. Jensen, County Counsel, Leslie H. Kraut, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Lyne O., mother of D.B., (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court that continues his placement in a non-relative therapeutic foster home. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3, subd. (d).) We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 8, 2006, the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition on behalf of 14-year-old C.B. and 10-year-old D.B. DSS alleged that Mother had pulled C.’s hair and forcefully covered her mouth, injuring her lip. C. also reported that her stepfather had pushed her and urged Mother to hit her. DSS alleged that Mother suffers from mental and emotional instability and has associated with violent men, thereby exposing her children to repeated domestic violence. The children’s father (Father) was incarcerated following his conviction of a crime of domestic violence. (§ 300, subds. (b), (c).)
The juvenile court ordered the children detained. DSS placed them in the home of a maternal aunt and uncle, the R. family. The court later sustained the dependency allegations against Mother and Father, continued the children as dependent children, and ordered DSS to provide reunification services to the family. In particular, D. received counseling for psychological problems, including anger, anxiety, fear, and violent thoughts toward his stepfather.
Prior to the 12-month review hearing, DSS recommended that the juvenile court terminate family reunification services to Mother because she did not participate in the services in any way, failed to visit her children during the prior 12 months, and did not contact the social worker. On October 3, 2007, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother did not participate in family reunification services. The court terminated her services and the set the matter for permanent planning.
We affirmed the order in In re C.B. (B202761, July 30, 2008) [nonpub. opn.]. Our opinion noted that Mother had dismissed two court-appointed attorneys, accused them of unethical conduct, and requested to represent herself. Although Mother wrote letters to the court and stated that she intended to employ private counsel, she did not employ counsel nor did she request another court-appointed attorney. Neither did she appear in court after September 12, 2006.
On March 4, 2008, the juvenile court appointed a third attorney to represent Mother.
On August 25, 2008, Mother filed a modification petition pursuant to section 388, requesting that the juvenile court remove the children from the home of the aunt and uncle due to allegations of abuse. The court summarily denied the modification petition. Mother filed a notice of appeal, but we later dismissed the appeal as abandoned. (In re C.B. (B211576, June 23, 2009).)
Approximately four months later, the aunt and uncle requested that DSS remove the children from their custody. DSS then placed C. with her paternal grandmother and D. in non-relative therapeutic foster care.
On September 11, 2009, the juvenile court held a post-permanency hearing. DSS filed a status review report which stated that D. wanted to return to the home of his aunt and uncle. DSS informed the court that the aunt and uncle refused D.'s return following his successful completion of mental health treatment. DSS stated that "[the aunt] will contact this social worker when she and her husband would like to revisit the possibility of future placement." (In re C.B. (B221014, July 22, 2010) [nonpub. opn.].)
On October 27, 2009, Mother filed another modification petition. She requested that D. be removed from foster care and returned to the home of his aunt and uncle. Mother alleged that D. was unhappy in foster care, he had completed mental health treatment, and that his aunt and uncle desired his return. The juvenile court summarily denied the petition because Mother did not state new evidence or changed circumstances. On July 22, 2010, we dismissed the appeal as moot because in a subsequent proceeding, the aunt and uncle declared that they were not yet ready to resume care and custody of D. (In re C.B., supra, B221014.)
On February 24, 2010, the juvenile court held a review hearing pursuant to section 366.3. D. was living in a therapeutic foster home and receiving weekly therapy. On weekends, he visited his father, his sister C., and his aunt and uncle. DSS reported that Mother and the stepfather had confronted D. in a department store in violation of a juvenile court order prohibiting non-supervised contact.
At the hearing, Mother submitted the declaration of the maternal aunt stating that she was discouraged from seeking placement of D. because of DSS's intrusive home visitation. The aunt stated that once-a-month visits by DSS were acceptable. Mother's attorney confirmed in the juvenile court hearing that aunt and uncle would like D.'s return "at some point, " but "not now." Following brief argument by the parties, the court continued D. in therapeutic foster care and set another post-permanency review hearing for August 18, 2010.
In this fifth appeal, Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by continuing D. in non-relative therapeutic foster care. The court has terminated family reunification services to Father and he is not a party to this appeal. On April 5, 2010, the court terminated dependency jurisdiction of C., who turned 18 years old on March 22, 2010. She is not a subject of this appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother argues that the juvenile court did not exercise its continuing duty to review D.'s placement pursuant to section 366.3, subdivision (h) [court must consider all permanency planning options for dependent child at six-month review hearing for child in foster care]. She relies on the general rule in Sheri T. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 334, 340, that six-month review hearings ensure "that a child in long-term foster care shall not slip into oblivion." Mother asserts that there exists sufficient evidence that D.'s aunt and uncle desire that he return to their custody and care.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by continuing D. in non-relative foster care placement because this was the only placement then available to him. The aunt and uncle previously informed DSS that they were not yet ready to resume care and custody of D. In December 2009, they informed DSS that their long hours of employment precluded D.'s return to their home. In the declaration that Mother submitted at the February 24, 2010 review hearing, the aunt complained that DSS required too many interventions in their home, but she did not state that she and her husband were willing to reaccept D. Mother's attorney conceded during argument that aunt and uncle were not seeking placement at that time. The court fulfilled its statutory obligations pursuant to section 366.3, subdivision (h) concerning "whether the child should be placed in another planned permanent living arrangement."
The order is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., PERREN, J., Barry T. LaBarbera, Judge