Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD226783
SIMS, Acting P. J.D. V. (appellant), the mother of S. V. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends the juvenile court committed reversible error in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for her. Disagreeing with that claim, we affirm the order terminating parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2008, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed an amended juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the 10-week-old minor. That petition alleged in part that appellant’s history of substance abuse impaired her ability to provide adequate care for the minor and placed the minor at a substantial risk of suffering physical harm or neglect. According to the petition, appellant had lost the custody of five other minors. The amended petition also alleged appellant was mildly mentally retarded, had a history of “angry and violent outburst[s] towards others,” was unable to understand a court order, and could not perform some basic independent living skills.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court appointed counsel for appellant. The juvenile court later sustained the amended petition, removed the minor from parental custody, and denied appellant reunification services. Thereafter, at the July 28, 2008, section 366.26 hearing, over appellant’s counsel’s objection, the juvenile court found it likely the minor would be adopted and terminated appellant’s parental rights.
We presume, as does appellant, that, in light of its other orders, the juvenile court also adjudged the minor a dependent child of the court, although the record does not so reflect.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that, as the record demonstrates she is incompetent, the juvenile court should have appointed a guardian ad litem to represent her interests in the dependency proceedings. As evidence of that incompetency, appellant relies primarily on her limited skills and mental retardation, reflected in her IQ of 64. Arguing that the court’s failure to appoint her a guardian ad litem violated her right to due process, appellant claims all orders entered after detention should be reversed.
Code of Civil Procedure section 372 provides, in part: “When . . . an incompetent person . . . is a party, that person shall appear . . . by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” The appointment is made “upon the application of . . . any other party to the action or proceeding, or by the court on its own motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 373, subd. (c).) The juvenile court has the duty to appoint a guardian ad litem sua sponte when it has knowledge of the party’s incompetency. (In re Lisa M. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 915, 919.)
In a dependency proceeding, the parent’s attorney may determine that a guardian ad litem should be appointed for the parent and can apply to the court for such an order. (In re Sara D. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 661, 667.) Upon such an application, the court must hold an informal hearing to give the parent the opportunity to be heard on the issue. (Id. at pp. 671-672.) The proper standard to apply when determining whether a guardian at litem should be appointed is whether the parent understands the nature of the proceedings and is able to cooperate with trial counsel in protecting his or her interests. (Id. at p. 667; In re Lisa M., supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 919; In re Christina B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1450-1451.)
In reviewing appellant’s contention, we employ the abuse of discretion standard. (In re R.S. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 946, 979.) The record reflects that neither counsel for appellant nor the juvenile court raised any issue of appellant’s competency. Appellant appeared at all hearings, and appellant’s counsel filed statements on appellant’s behalf, stating appellant’s positions on various matters. Moreover, appellant engaged in programs on her own initiative. Finally, the record reflects that during visits with the minor, appellant acted in an appropriate manner.
It is true that, in the social worker’s February 2008 report, DHHS opined that appellant “was not able to understand the legal process and the need for the Court to be involved.” Moreover, a psychological evaluation concluded that appellant was “mildly mentally retarded, with poor memory, immature understanding and judgment, limited factual knowledge and poor logical thinking,” and with first grade equivalent reading skills and second grade math abilities. On the other hand, in that same report the social worker summarized the contents of an interview with appellant, in which in most respects appellant demonstrated an understanding of the circumstances surrounding her case and was both “attentive” and “cooperative,” in the words of the social worker.
In In re R.S., supra, 167 Cal.App.3d at pages 954 and 978, the mother, who was mildly mentally retarded, averred that the juvenile court erred in failing to appoint her a guardian ad litem. Finding no abuse of discretion in that failure, the court of appeal found nothing in the record suggesting a lack of understanding of the dependency proceedings by the mother. (Id. at p. 979.) Moreover, the court concluded that, based on the record before it, the mother was able to participate in the proceedings and cooperate with her counsel. (Id. at p. 980.)
In In re Ronell A. (1996)44 Cal.App.4th 1352 at page 1356, the father had a chronic mental condition and an emotional disability. Noting the father had cooperated with his counsel and pointing to evidence the juvenile court was aware of his condition, the Court of Appeal held the juvenile court’s failure to inquire into the possible appointment of a guardian ad litem for the father was not an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion. (Id. at pp. 1367-1368.)
In this case, the record reflects that, despite her limited cognitive skills, appellant was able to participate effectively in some programs, express her opinion about the disposition of the dependency proceedings, and assist her counsel in preparing a petition for modification. Moreover, it is apparent the juvenile court was aware of appellant’s condition, as it had considered the social worker’s report that discussed appellant’s circumstances.
On this record, we conclude that, as there was insufficient evidence before it to warrant inquiry into competency, the juvenile court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for appellant, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, was within its discretion. (In re Ronell A., supra, 44Cal.App.4th at p. 1368, In re R.S., supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 979.) There was no error.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court terminating appellant’s parental rights is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.