Opinion
F074918
08-14-2017
In re EMILY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBIN B., Defendant and Appellant.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark L. Nations, County Counsel, and Amanda LeBaron, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JD136310)
OPINION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Louie L. Vega, Judge. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark L. Nations, County Counsel, and Amanda LeBaron, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
At a dispositional hearing in November 2016, the juvenile court ordered then four-month-old Emily M. into a permanent plan of legal guardianship and set aside the visitation order with Emily's brothers, Jacob and Evan, also juvenile court dependents. The previous August, the court terminated the parental rights of the children's mother, appellant Robin B. (mother), as to Jacob and Evan. Mother appeals from the dispositional order, contending the juvenile court erred in not ordering sibling visitation. She also contends Emily's attorney had a conflict of interest. We conclude mother lacks standing to raise either issue and affirm.
Mother and the children's father, Michael M., appealed from the termination order to this court (In re Evan M. et al. (July 7, 2017, F074510) [nonpub. opn.]). We grant mother's request and take judicial notice of the record in that case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Newborn Jacob and one-year-old Evan were taken into protective custody in June 2015 by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) after mother and Jacob tested positive for methamphetamine. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children after sustaining allegations that mother's substance abuse and mental illness placed the children at a substantial risk of harm and that father failed to protect them. The court ordered reunification services for the parents but terminated them at the six-month review hearing for noncompliance and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for August 31, 2016. Neither parent challenged the setting order by filing a petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452.) The department placed the boys with a nonrelative extended family member where they remained. However, their paternal grandmother, M.M. (grandmother), was interested in placement.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
In early August 2016, mother gave birth to Emily. Afraid Emily would be taken from her, mother refused to provide a urine sample or allow Emily to be "bagged" for a toxicology screen. The hospital staff notified the department who took Emily into protective custody and placed her with grandmother. At the time, neither parent was participating in substance abuse treatment and mother was not receiving mental health services. Though they denied any drug use, they tested positive for methamphetamine several days after Emily's birth.
On August 31, 2016, the juvenile court terminated mother and father's parental rights and freed Jacob and Evan for adoption. The court also granted the caretakers' request to be designated the children's prospective adoptive parents.
In October 2016, the juvenile court sustained an amended dependency petition as to Emily and adjudged her a dependent child after the parents submitted the matter for jurisdiction. The parents also waived reunification services in the hope that grandmother would be appointed Emily's legal guardian. The court continued the matter for disposition and ordered supervised sibling visitation monthly for one hour at a location determined by the department in light of "ongoing issues" between grandmother and the prospective adoptive parents.
In its report for the dispositional hearing, the department informed the juvenile court that Emily was visiting her brothers weekly and that the boys greeted and kissed her when prompted. However, the department opined that the quality of the children's interaction was very limited because of their young ages and saw no evidence that Emily had any specific bond to her brothers. The department believed that continued sibling visitation would be disruptive to all of the children since they were in the process of being separately and permanently placed.
On November 9, 2016, at the dispositional hearing, the issue of continuing sibling visitation was raised. Emily's attorney opposed it. Father's attorney argued that sibling visitation should continue until Jacob and Evan were adopted. Mother's attorney questioned whether Emily's attorney who also represented Jacob and Evan may have a conflict of interest because she was not considering Emily's position but that of Jacob and Evan's prospective adoptive parents. The court invited briefing on the issue of sibling visitation and continued the dispositional hearing.
On November 30, 2016, the juvenile court ordered Emily removed from parental custody, selected guardianship as her permanent plan and appointed grandmother her legal guardian. The court ordered weekly, supervised visitation for the parents, set aside sibling visitation and terminated its dependency jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to order sibling visitation. She also contends Emily's attorney had a conflict of interest because, by advocating for termination of sibling visitation, she acted against Emily's interest in continuing contact with her brothers. As is apparent, mother's contentions raise the same issue: sibling visitation. We conclude she lacks standing to raise that issue in any of its various forms.
"Generally, parents can appeal judgments or orders in juvenile dependency matters. [Citation.] However, a parent must also establish she is a 'party aggrieved' to obtain a review of a ruling on the merits. [Citation.] Therefore, a parent cannot raise issues on appeal from a dependency matter that do not affect her own rights. [Citation.] Standing to appeal is jurisdictional." (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 (Frank L.).)
In a dependency, a parent's interest for standing purposes is to reunify with his or her dependent child. (In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823, 1835.) For that reason, "[c]ase law consistently holds that a parent lacks standing to raise the issue of sibling visitation, reasoning that the minor's interest in maintaining a relationship with siblings is unrelated to the parents' interest in reunification." (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 809-810.) "Therefore, a parent has no standing to raise an issue related to the minor's right to visit his siblings." (Frank L., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 703.)
Mother acknowledges she may not have standing to raise sibling visitation under these general principles however contends there is an exception for parents like her whose parental rights are intact. Citing, In re Nachelle S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1557 (Nachelle S.), she asserts "only a [parent whose] rights to a child that have been terminated lacks standing to raise sibling visitation." The Nachelle S. court however made no such distinction.
In Nachelle S., a mother appealed from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights, claiming the court erred in failing to order "ongoing and frequent" sibling visitation for her minor daughter, Nachelle, as part of the permanent plan. (Nachelle S., supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 1558.) The court concluded the mother's interest, i.e., the right to reunify, was not impacted by the court's order concerning Nachelle's relations with her siblings. Therefore, she was not aggrieved and did not have standing to raise the issue of sibling visitation on appeal. (Id. at p. 1562.) Thus, the court's conclusion the mother lacked standing is completely consistent with the general principles set forth above. It did not hold, as mother asserts, that only a parent whose parental rights have been terminated lacks standing to raise the issue of sibling visitation.
We conclude mother failed to show how she was aggrieved by the juvenile court's order concerning Emily's visitation with her siblings and therefore lacks standing to challenge it on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
HILL, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
DETJEN, J. /s/_________
SMITH, J.