Opinion
H049216
03-10-2022
In re A.G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. T.G., Defendant and Appellant. MONTEREYCOUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 19JD000073)
Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J., and Lie, J.
Appellant, T.G., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to A.G. Respondent Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) and T.G. jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the trial court erred in finding the child had a probability of adoption, foreclosing the permanent plan option of long-term foster care. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
I. Procedural Background
On May 11, 2021, the juvenile court terminated T.G.'s parental rights as to A.G. T.G. timely appealed that order. After the record was filed, and while the appeal was pending, the parties jointly moved for summary reversal.
The notice of appeal filed June 9, 2021, did not specify the date and order being appealed. On September 17, 2021, appellant filed a motion to construe the notice of appeal as taken from the May 11, 2021 order terminating parental rights. We hereby grant that motion.
II. Discussion
The parties agree that the trial court erred when it conducted a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 and found a probability of adoption which foreclosed the legal opportunity for the trial court to consider long-term foster care as a permanent plan. The parties further agree that this court is likely to reverse the order on appeal. To minimize delay in the child's permanency, they jointly request that this court reverse and remand the matter for the limited purpose of vacating the adoptability finding, and holding a new permanency selection hearing to consider the possibility of a permanent plan of long-term foster care. (In re RashadH. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 382, as mod. (Mar. 2, 2000).)
The parties' joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. Summary reversal of the judgment would place the parties in the same position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion, would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the need for further briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court, and most importantly would minimize delay in permanency for the child. Both public policy and the public interest are served by these outcomes.
This court further finds that the parties' grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable. The parties agree that the trial court erred in finding the child adoptable, foreclosing consideration of a long-term foster care plan. The parties have sought to resolve the matter expeditiously and in the best interest of the parties and the child. These grounds for reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and outweigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. Public trust in the courts is enhanced, not eroded, when parties recognize and acknowledge errors and agree to resolve them with limited delay. (See Union Bank of Cal. v. Braille Inst, of Am. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324.)
III. Disposition
The May 11, 2021 order terminating parental rights and selecting adoption as a permanent plan is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of vacating the finding of adoptability and holding a new permanency selection hearing to consider long-term foster care as a permanent plan. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.