Opinion
F042711.
7-15-2003
LINDA D., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Judith Tuttle, for Petitioner. No appearance, for Respondent. Phillip S. Cronin, County Counsel and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) of respondent courts order that a section 366.26 hearing be held on July 23, 2003 as to her son Troy. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In January 2003, the juvenile court adjudged then two-month-old Troy a dependent of the court after sustaining allegations petitioner exposed him to drugs in utero and failed to reunify with his four siblings. ( § 300, subds. (b) & (j).) Troy was placed in foster care.
In its dispositional report, the social services department (department) reported Troy was not developmentally on target. He rarely made eye contact, ignored moving objects and did not make noise or cry. The department further reported petitioner requested Troy be placed with petitioners maternal great aunt, Ruth. Ruth adopted another of petitioners children, two-year-old M., who suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The department assessing Ruth, however, had reservations about placing Troy with her because she allowed petitioner to have liberal visits with M. despite petitioners substance abuse. Petitioner requested the department additionally assess her adult twin daughters, as well as Troys paternal grandmother. The department recommended the court deny petitioner reunification services and Troy remain placed with his foster mother who was willing to adopt him.
Petitioner challenged the departments recommendations and the matter was tried at the contested dispositional hearing conducted on March 19, 2003. Case manager, Gina Sullivan, testified the departments policy is to assess one relative at a time. Otherwise, she explained, parents have difficulty choosing among relatives when more than one has been approved for placement. She testified the department decided not to place Troy with Ruth. She further testified petitioner lived with one of her twin daughters. Therefore, the department would not assess that daughter, but rather the other twin daughter and then the paternal grandmother. Social worker, Linda Walls-McEwen, testified she recommended the department not place Troy with Ruth because she did not have the training to handle another medically fragile child. After argument, the court denied petitioner reunification services and ordered that Troy remain in licensed foster care. The court further ordered that relative assessment continue.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the departments policy of assessing one relative at a time does not comply with section 361.3, the statute governing preferential consideration of relatives for placement. Section 361.3, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part that "in any case in which more than one appropriate relative requests preferential consideration pursuant to [Section 361.3], each relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated in [Section 361.3, subdivision (a)]." Petitioner argues the statute requires that all appropriate relatives be assessed simultaneously. Otherwise, according to her, the statute has no meaning. We need not decide the order of investigation, whether simultaneous or sequential, as the placement decision has not been made.
Petitioner further argues the court erred in not stating its reasons for denying Ruth placement of Troy. Section 361.3, subdivision (e) provides "If the court does not place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement [pursuant to section 361.3], the court shall state for the record the reasons placement with that relative was denied." It is true; the court did not state its reasons for not placing Troy with Ruth. However, we may infer a required finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Corienna (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 73, 83, 261 Cal. Rptr. 462.) Here, the court denied Ruth placement of Troy because she would have difficulty managing two medically fragile children. We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.