Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Super. Ct. No. EJ2971
McDONALD, J.
D.M. appeals an order terminating parental rights to her son, Samuel R., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. D.M. contends the court erred by terminating parental rights based on an inadequate permanency planning assessment report. She also asserts the court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing. We affirm the order.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Samuel R. was born in March 2004 to D.M. and Billy R., Sr. (together, parents). Samuel has three brothers (brothers or siblings). The parents have long histories of substance abuse and criminal involvement, as well as child welfare referrals dating back to 2000. Since Samuel was five months old, a relative (Aunt) cared for him for extended periods.
Billy R. does not appeal.
Aunt was married to Billy's brother and is Samuel's paternal aunt through marriage. In addition, Aunt is D.M.'s first cousin on her mother's side.
Samuel was staying with Aunt when the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) detained his siblings in protective custody. D.M. then voluntarily placed the siblings with their maternal grandmother in Arizona. Six months later, in approximately April 2007, D.M. left Samuel in Aunt's care. Aunt intended to obtain guardianship of Samuel but could not afford the costs of the proceeding.
Samuel was born with a partial left hand. In April 2008 Aunt sought assistance from the Agency because she was unable to obtain needed medical care for Samuel, who needed a prosthesis for his hand, or to enroll him in school. D.M. visited Samuel occasionally; however, she would not take Samuel for medical treatment and she refused to provide Aunt with a letter of authorization for his medical care.
The Agency initiated dependency proceedings on Samuel's behalf in May 2008. The social worker was unable to locate either parent. D.M. and Samuel were members of the Barona Band of Indians (the Tribe). The Tribe and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) representatives were not able to locate the parents.
The parents' whereabouts continued to be unknown at the six-month status review hearing on January 27, 2009. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In April 2009 the Agency located D.M. in local custody. She first appeared in Samuel's dependency proceedings on April 30. After a court hearing on June 8, D.M. asked to visit Samuel. Because D.M. was in custody and the visitation room at the detention facility had to be reserved in advance, the visit could not be scheduled until July 10.
The contested section 366.26 hearing was held July 7, 2009. D.M. asked the court to continue the hearing to allow the social worker to observe the scheduled visit between her and Samuel. She argued the Agency was required to assess her relationship with Samuel as part of its section 366.26 report, and a continuance was necessary to allow the Agency to complete an adequate permanency planning assessment (assessment or assessment report). The court denied her request.
The court admitted in evidence the Agency's section 366.26 report, including the assessment and addendums. The social worker testified. The court accepted an offer of proof of D.M.'s testimony.
In addition to the assessment, which we discuss in greater detail in Discussion, post, at pages 7 to 8, the section 366.26 report detailed the legal history of Samuel's dependency proceedings, the parents' current status and Samuel's relationship with Aunt. Samuel had no significant contact with either parent during the past year. Aunt was committed to raising Samuel in a healthy, loving and drug-free home. Samuel was close to Aunt; she was his primary parent and caregiver.
The social worker testified Samuel enjoyed seeing his brothers and felt included in the sibling group when he was with them. Aunt intended to continue Samuel's contact with his maternal grandmother and brothers in Arizona.
D.M.'s offer of proof stated she was Samuel's primary caregiver until she and Billy separated. After D.M. placed Samuel in Aunt's care in 2007, she visited him four times. Samuel referred to her as "mother" when he was not with Aunt. D.M.'s last contact with Samuel was a day-long visit on March 1, 2008, at a family birthday party for him. Samuel had a significant relationship with his siblings.
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt Samuel was adoptable, no exception to termination of parental rights applied, and adoption was in Samuel's best interests. The court terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A
The Parties' Contentions
D.M. contends the court erred by terminating her parental rights. She asserts the assessment report did not comport with statutory requirements because it did not describe the nature of Samuel's relationship with her, document their visits or assess Samuel's relationships with his siblings. She asserts the assessment was deficient because it repeated small portions of earlier court reports and did not reflect independent investigation and observation. D.M. also contends the court abused its discretion by denying her request to continue the section 366.26 hearing to allow the social worker to observe D.M.'s scheduled visit with Samuel and describe the nature of their relationship in the assessment report.
In response, the Agency argues the assessment report was in substantial compliance with statutory requirements under section 366.21, subdivision (i)(1)(B). The Agency asserts the social worker diligently documented D.M.'s contacts with Samuel and Samuel's sibling relationships in the assessment report. The Agency contends the court acted within its discretion when it determined a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing was not in Samuel's best interests and denied D.M.'s request.
Minor's counsel joins the Agency's arguments.
B
The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied D.M.'s Request for a Continuance
We are not persuaded by D.M.'s contention the court erred by denying her request to continue the section 366.26 hearing to allow the social worker to observe a visit between D.M. and Samuel and to properly assess the parent-child relationship.
Under section 352, subdivision (a), continuances shall be granted only for good cause, provided that no continuance shall be granted that is contrary to the child's best interests. Continuances are expressly discouraged in dependency proceedings. (Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242; In re Emily L. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 734, 743.) We review a court's exercise of its discretion to grant or deny a motion for continuance under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 179-180.)
The assessment report discussed the lack of contact between D.M. and Samuel during his dependency proceedings. The nature of the parent-child relationship can be inferred from D.M.'s disinterest in maintaining contact with Samuel and her unwillingness to participate in his dependency proceedings. The court could reasonably determine the information the social worker may have garnered from a single visit at this stage of Samuel's dependency proceedings did not constitute good cause to delay the proceedings, and any delay in the proceedings was not in Samuel's best interests. (§ 352, subd. (a).) The court did not abuse its discretion by denying D.M.'s request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing.
C
Legal Framework and Standard of Review
When the court sets a permanency plan selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26, it is required to direct the Agency to prepare an assessment report. (§§ 361.5, subd. (g), 366.21, subd. (i), 366.22, subd. (b), 366.3, subd. (h).) This court has previously held that the section 366.26 assessment report is "a cornerstone of the evidentiary structure" on which the court, the parents and the child are entitled to rely. (In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 413 (Crystal J.); In re Valerie W. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1, 11-13 (Valerie W.).) If deficiencies in an assessment report are sufficiently egregious, they may undermine the evidentiary basis of the court's decision to terminate parental rights. (Valerie W., at p. 14, citing Crystal J., supra, at p. 413; see In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624 [because assessment of child's adoptability was "sorely lacking," substantial evidence did not support adoptability finding].)
The Agency is required to address seven subjects in the assessment report. These subjects include a description of the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental and emotional status; an analysis of the likelihood the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated; and information about any identified prospective adoptive parent or guardian. (§ 366.21, subd. (i); Crystal J., supra,12 Cal.App.4th at p. 411.) The Agency is also required to "review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and his or her parents or legal guardians and other members of his or her extended family since the time of placement.... '[E]xtended family' for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the child's siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles." (§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(B).)
On review, under the substantial evidence standard, we give the court's finding the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolve any evidentiary conflict in favor of the order. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)
D
This Court Cannot Grant Effective Relief on D.M.'s Claim the Assessment of Her Relationship with Samuel Was Inadequate
D.M. did not assert at trial, and does not assert on appeal, the beneficial parent-child relationship exception applied, or may apply, to preclude termination of parental rights. On appeal she acknowledges she was not a frequent presence in Samuel's life during his dependency case. With respect to D.M.'s argument the assessment of the parent-child relationship was inadequate, even were we to conclude D.M.'s argument had merit, which we do not, reversal of the order terminating parental rights would have no import, other than delay. " 'A case is moot when any ruling by this court can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.' " (McKee v. Orange Unified School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1315, quoting Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880.)
E
The Agency's Assessment Report Does Not Call into Question the Order Terminating Parental Rights
We are not persuaded by D.M.'s contention the assessment report is inadequate. The assessment report details Samuel's medical, developmental, educational and mental and emotional status. It discusses his placement history and history of contact with his family, including his parents. The Agency completed an analysis of the likelihood Samuel would be adopted and the proposed permanency plan, and reported its investigation of the identified adoptive parent and Samuel's relationship with her. The social worker spoke with Samuel about adoption and reported his level of understanding and statements about adoption in her report. Although not included under the pertinent assessment heading, the assessment report includes a brief description of Samuel's contact with his siblings and the enjoyable nature of his relationship with them.
The assessment report states D.M. did not contact the social worker, participate in Samuel's dependency proceedings or contact Samuel for more than a year. The record shows from approximately April 2007 to March 1, 2008, D.M. visited Samuel four times. She made no provisions for his support and did not assist Aunt in meeting his medical and educational needs. At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, D.M. had not had any contact with Samuel for more than 16 months.
With respect to Samuel's sibling relationships, the assessment report states Samuel did not live in the same household with his siblings. He enjoyed visiting them but did not talk about them. Samuel did not appear to be strongly attached to his siblings. The assessment of sibling contact is supported by the record. The social worker testified after D.M. left Samuel with Aunt, he continued to visit his siblings. Samuel knew his brothers and enjoyed their visits. Aunt intended to maintain Samuel's contact with his brothers.
We emphasize that even if an assessment report is inadequate or deficient in some respect, the issue on review is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the trial court. (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 14; Crystal J., supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 413; Brian P., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) To the extent the Agency's assessment of the nature and frequency of Samuel's contacts with D.M. and his brothers appears cursory or was not based on an independent investigation by the permanency planning social worker, the record does not show the brevity of the information undermines the evidentiary basis of the court's decision to terminate parental rights. (Valerie W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 14, citing Crystal J., supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 413.)
See, e.g., Valerie W., supra,162 Cal.App.4th at pages 14 to 15 [lack of information about the child's physical, mental and emotional status, the eligibility of a long-term caregiver to adopt the child and the ability of an identified adoptive parent to meet the child's special needs; record does not support adoptability finding], In re Brian P., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pages 624 to 625 [agency did not complete an assessment report; record raised more concerns about the child's adoptability than it resolved]; Crystal J., supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at page 413 [assessment did not comply with statutory requirements to assess criminal record, if any, and financial status of potential adoptive parents; record adequately supports court's findings and judgment]. In those cases, the nature of the deficiencies directly pertained to the issue of the child's adoptability, which is not at issue here.
Other than D.M.'s offer of proof that Samuel had a significant relationship with his brothers, D.M. did not present evidence relevant to establishing the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights. The court could reasonably rely on the assessment and the social worker's opinion that Samuel did not have a significant relationship with his brothers. The court did not err by not applying the sibling-relationship exception to termination of parental rights. As we discussed at page 8, ante, D.M. did not assert the parent-child exception applied. The record supports the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., McINTYRE, J.