Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK58959, Steven L. Berman, Juvenile Court Referee.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
This is the fourth appellate proceeding in this case. In the first, Meta M. petitioned this court for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) setting aside the juvenile court’s July 26, 2006 order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider termination of her parental rights over her two teenaged daughters, K.M. and S.M. We denied the petition. (Meta M. v. Superior Court (Oct. 30, 2006, B192596) [nonpub. opn.].)
All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The second proceeding involved a purported appeal from a number of orders, including the jurisdiction/disposition order sustaining the allegations of the section 300 petition and declaring K.M. and S.M. to be dependent children of the court. We affirmed. (In re K.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M. (Nov. 30, 2006, B187821 c/w B189305) [nonpub. opn.].)
In the third proceeding, Meta M. purported to appeal from various orders. We had no jurisdiction to review the majority of these orders. The only orders we had jurisdiction to review, those of May 7 and May 24, 2007, Meta M. did not specifically challenge. We consequently affirmed them. (In re S.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M. (Dec. 24, 2007, B199434) [nonpub. opn.].)
In this proceeding, Meta M. appeals from an order granting a section 388 petition by the Department of Children and Family Services. She challenges the order that she have no access to S.M.’s educational records. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
“On May 2, 2005, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), alleging that then 16-year-old K.M. and then 14-year-old S.M. were at risk of serious physical and emotional harm due to Meta M.’s inability to care for them and her emotional abuse of them. K.M. and S.M. had been living with Meta M. and her boyfriend, Michael G. The girls had left home and went to stay with their maternal aunt, Stephanie M. The girls did not get along with Michael G. and believed that Meta M.’s and Michael G.’s demands on them were unreasonable. The girls were detained and placed into foster care.
During the course of the proceedings, DNA test results established that Michael G. was not K.M.’s biological father. The juvenile court found that Michael G. was not K.M.’s alleged or presumed father. The girls’ alleged father was in prison in Washington and not involved in the proceedings.
“At the August 1, 2005 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the section 300 petition and declared K.M. and S.M. to be dependent children of the court. Despite Meta M.’s waiver of reunification services, the court ordered DCFS to provide reunification services to Meta M. and the girls.
“In November 2005, K.M. was removed from her foster family and placed with her maternal aunt, Stephanie M. By June 2006, both K.M. and S.M. were living with Stephanie M. They insisted that they did not want to reunify with Meta M. as long as she remained with Michael G.” (In re S.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M., supra, B199434, at pp. 2-3.)
After K.M. turned 18, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over her in order to assist in obtaining her birth certificate so she could obtain a social security card and driver’s license. On March 22, 2007, the court continued jurisdiction over K.M. and S.M. and ordered foster care as the girls’ permanent plan. On May 24, 2007, the court terminated its jurisdiction over S.M. and transferred jurisdiction to Kin-Gap. (In re S.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M., supra, B199434, at pp. 3-4.)
On October 18, 2007, DCFS filed a section 388 petition seeking to have the court reinstate jurisdiction over S.M. DCFS explained that on September 13, DCFS discovered that S.M.’s birth certificate was a forgery and there was, in fact, no birth certificate for her. Reinstatement of jurisdiction would enable DCFS to obtain a legal birth certificate for S.M. so that she could obtain a social security card and driver’s license.
After a hearing on November 2, 2007, the juvenile court granted the petition. It also made an order that Meta M. “is not authorized to have access to [S.M.’s] school records.”
DISCUSSION
Meta M. contends that because she received no notice that the juvenile court would consider her access to S.M.’s school records at the November 2, 2007 hearing, she was denied her due process right to notice. (In re DeJohn B. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 100, 109-110; In re Melinda J. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1418.) She claims per se reversal is therefore required. (Judith P. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535, 557-558; In re Hector R. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1153.)
The hearing was not recorded. We therefore do not know how the issue of Meta M.’s access to S.M.’s school records arose. Specifically, we do not know whether DCFS, S.M. or Meta M. raised the issue. Neither do we know if Meta M. objected to its consideration at the hearing or if she acquiesced in its consideration.
Meta M., as the appellant, has the burden of providing us with a record demonstrating the claimed error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 318.) She has failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, we must deem her contention to be waived. (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)
The order is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., VOGEL, J.