Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD225676
HULL, J.O.J., mother of the minor, appeals in propria persona from orders of the juvenile court placing the minor with the father under continued supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services (Department). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.22, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Counsel initially was appointed to represent appellant. After reviewing the record, counsel informed his client that he intended to send a letter to this court pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952. Appellant notified counsel she wished to represent herself and appellant jointly moved for an order relieving counsel, which was granted. Thereafter, appellant filed a brief in pro per. Although preceding the opinion in In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, this procedure is not in conflict with that opinion. Insofar as we can discern appellant’s argument, appellant contends the minor was manipulated by the foster parent to make allegations of sexual abuse by appellant’s boyfriend/husband, however, the minor later recanted the allegations undermining the jurisdictional basis for the dependency proceeding. Appellant further claims she was denied effective assistance of counsel in attempting to vacate orders occurring after the selection and implementation hearing. We affirm.
Facts
The minor, age 11, was removed from appellant’s custody in March 2007 based on allegations that appellant and appellant’s boyfriend, P.C., had sexually molested the minor’s half sibling. Two younger siblings were also detained but are not subjects of this appeal. The half sibling disclosed multiple acts of sexual abuse, and medical findings were consistent with the half sibling’s statements. Both appellant and the boyfriend denied that any abuse had occurred and appellant tried to shift blame to the half sibling’s father. Initially, the minor denied she had been subjected to sexual abuse but did display sexualized behaviors in foster care.
An addendum report in January 2008 stated that the minor and a younger half sibling (A.C.) both disclosed sexual abuse perpetrated by P.C. A later addendum noted that physical findings were consistent with the abuse the minor and A.C. reported. Appellant had engaged in services and continued her relationship with P.C., seeing no risk to the minor in doing so despite his lack of participation in services, and visited the minor regularly. Subsequent addendum reports indicated that appellant, P.C., and others were pressuring the half sibling who first reported the abuse. Appellant was not abiding by visitation rules and challenged the visit supervisor when redirected to do so. In an addendum in March 2008, the minor’s therapist reported the minor believed she had done something wrong, was bad, and deserved to be in foster care. The minor tended to try to take care of appellant. The minor had problems in her placement due to appellant whispering to her in visits that she needed to move and appellant disliked the foster mother.
After an extensive hearing in which the half sibling, the minor, and the social worker testified at length, the court sustained the amended petition. At the disposition hearing, the court denied services to appellant and ordered services to the minor’s father.
The 12-month review report stated appellant continued to pressure the minor to leave her foster placement. Visits remained problematic because appellant continued to do as she pleased regardless of visitation rules and her behavior upset the minor. Appellant ended her visits after an hour although two hour visits were authorized, resulting in decreasing the authorization to one hour a week. The court ordered further services for the father.
The 18-month review report stated the minor wanted to live with her father. The minor was showing more interest in visiting appellant after a period when she did not wish to do so. However, during a visit in June 2008, appellant left halfway through the visit leaving the minor standing in the room. Appellant was negative toward the minor during the visit and later told the social worker she could not stay in the room with the minor knowing the minor lied about her. Appellant attended a visit in July and was much more appropriate with the minor. An addendum to the report recommended the minor be placed with her father.
At the section 366.22 hearing in December 2008, the court adopted the recommendation. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order.
Discussion
I
Appellant argues the minor was manipulated by her foster mother to make a report of sexual abuse. She further argues that, in a telephone call which occurred eight months after the review hearing, the minor recanted the allegations of abuse.
This court normally does not review matters occurring after the entry of the order from which the appeal was taken. Instead, we review the correctness of the order at the time it was rendered. (In re Daniel C.H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 830.) There is no reason to do otherwise here. The petition was sustained on a combination of disclosures by three children of sexual abuse and by medical evidence supporting the children’s statements. A subsequent recantation by a single child does not “completely undermine” the jurisdictional basis of the dependency proceedings. (In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 1016.)
As to the claims that J.J. was coached or otherwise influenced by the foster mother, those issues relate to the credibility of a witness at the jurisdiction hearing and should have been raised on appeal of the judgment of disposition. (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d. 107, 112.) No such appeal was taken and the issue has been forfeited. (In re Daniel K. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 661, 667; John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405.) In any event, appellant’s claim is not supported by substantial credible evidence.
II
Appellant asserts her counsel was ineffective in attempting to vacate orders prior to the “selection and implementation” hearing.
The hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for minors who have not been returned to parental custody is governed by section 366.26 and occurs after all reunification efforts have ceased. (§§ 361.5, subd. (f), 366.21, subds. (e) & f), 366.22, 366.26.) Because J.J. was returned to her father’s custody following the 18-month review hearing, no selection and implementation was ever held as to her. We take judicial notice of the existence of two other appeals (case Nos. C060897 and C062209) which involve termination of parental rights as to J.J.’s younger half siblings. Those cases necessarily did have selection and implementation hearings. Appellant’s argument is inapplicable to this child’s dependency. There is no indication appellant’s counsel in this case was anything other than competent. (§ 317.5; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688; [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693]; In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1711.)
Disposition
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. BUTZ, J.