Opinion
F042953.
10-7-2003
In re LEE B., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TANYA M., Defendant and Appellant.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Phillip S. Cronin, County Counsel, and W. Richard Bailey, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
Tanya M. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her son, Lee.[] She contends the court erred by not enforcing a prior order that the maternal grandmother be evaluated for possible relative placement. On review, we find appellant lacks standing to raise this contention.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) detained Lee upon his birth in November 2001 and initiated these dependency proceedings due to appellants substance abuse and Lees in utero drug exposure. By June 2002, the Fresno County Superior Court adjudged the minor a dependent child of the court and removed him from parental custody. The court denied appellants reunification services based on her long-term drug abuse and history of prior dependencies for other children.
The court initially rejected a request for relative placement by appellants mother. However, by October 2002 when it terminated all reunification efforts and set the section 366.26 hearing, the court ordered a second evaluation of the maternal grandmother. At a placement review hearing in December 2002, the department submitted a report to the court recommending, for a number of reasons, against a change in Lees placement. The court made no further order on the subject.
Eventually, following a contested hearing in April 2003 regarding whether Lee would benefit from a continued relationship particular with his father, the court found the child adoptable and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
While appellant claims the court should have enforced its October 2002 order for a placement re-evaluation of the maternal grandmother, appellant lacks standing, a jurisdictional requirement for our review of her claim. (Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 289, 295.) Although a parent generally can appeal judgments or orders in juvenile dependency matters (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734), a parent must also establish he is a "party aggrieved" to obtain a review of a ruling on the merits. (Ibid.) Consequently, a parent cannot raise issues on appeal from a dependency matter that do not affect his own rights. (In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541.) The issue of Lees placement at this stage of the proceedings did not affect appellants rights. The child was adoptable and, even if relative placement had been appropriate, it would not have prevented the court from proceeding to terminate parental rights. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)
Second, assuming arguendo that appellant has standing, we would not hesitate to affirm. The issue came on for hearing in December 2002 at which point it was clear the department had not re-evaluated the maternal grandmother. If appellant believed the court should have enforced its order for a re-evaluation, she should have pursued the matter then. Having failed to take any action either in the trial court or by appeal following the December hearing, appellant has waived the right to now complain. (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.