Opinion
Page 421h
149 Cal.App.4th 421h __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ In re LAUREN R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, VELDA C. et al., Respondents, v. AMANDA C., Defendant and Appellant, LAUREN R., Minor and Appellant. G037590 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division April 17, 2007(Super. Ct. No. DP008387)
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING; CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
The opinion filed March 19, 2007, (148 Cal.App.4th 841; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___) is hereby modified as follows:
On page 1 [148 Cal.App.4th 841, advance report], the phrase “Appeal from an order of the Superior Court” is modified to read, “Appeal from orders of the Superior Court.”
On page 23 [148 Cal.App.4th 861, advance report, 1st full par.], the paragraph under the heading “DISPOSITION” is modified to read, “The order placing Lauren with Velda for adoption is reversed. Because it is necessary to restore all parties to their prior positions, the orders terminating parental rights are also reversed. (See In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 364]; In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1407 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 148].) SSA is directed to make an explicit determination as to whether Amanda qualifies for the caretaker preference under Subdivision (k). If SSA determines she does not qualify, the juvenile court shall review the determination using its independent judgment. If the juvenile court finds Amanda does qualify under Subdivision (k), her application for adoption shall be processed and the home study completed before a new placement hearing is held. If she does not qualify under Subdivision (k), the juvenile court shall hold a new placement hearing; the court shall not accord a preference to Velda based on her status as a relative of Lauren. After the placement hearing, the court shall reinstate its orders terminating parental rights made on September 15, 2006. The writ of supersedeas staying the orders of the juvenile court shall dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur.”
These modifications change the judgment.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.