Opinion
C088980
11-06-2019
In re A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.F., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. JD239046, JD239047)
Appellant R.F., mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request to continue the section 366.26 hearing to permit her time to obtain and present evidence regarding a pending relative placement assessment. We conclude mother lacks standing to raise this issue and dismiss the appeal.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2018, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the minors alleging mother had failed to protect one-year-old A.M. from numerous serious injuries sustained as a result of inflicted trauma. Mother knew her boyfriend was physically abusing and torturing the minor but allowed him continued access to, and unsupervised contact with, A.M. and her older sibling, D.F. (five years old). The juvenile court sustained the petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (e), (i), and (j).
At the August 2018 disposition hearing, mother was denied reunification services and the matter was set for a section 366.26 hearing for October 17, 2018. Mother requested a relative placement hearing. No relatives had come forward, but mother had told the social worker that she wanted the maternal grandmother assessed. The phone number provided to the Department for the maternal grandmother, however, had been incorrect. Mother informed the court she would provide the Department with the maternal grandmother's phone number. A relative placement hearing was scheduled to occur in six weeks.
On October 12, 2018, the Department noticed all counsel that it had located a prospective adoptive placement. The initial relative placement hearing took place on October 17, 2018. The Department informed the court that it had attempted to contact the maternal grandmother on several occasions but never received a return call. The Department finally spoke with the maternal grandmother on September 24, 2018. The maternal grandmother had difficulty following the discussion and the Spanish interpreter had to repeat herself multiple times. The maternal grandmother, who lived in Los Angeles, stated she wanted placement of the minors, so the social worker gave her contact information to the relative placement unit in Los Angeles County. The Department informed the maternal grandmother multiple times to call Resource Family Approval (RFA) and keep in contact with the Department. Mother claimed the Department gave the maternal grandmother the wrong information for the RFA unit and was not returning the maternal grandmother's calls. Another relative placement hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2018. The section 366.26 hearing was reset for February 6, 2019.
At the second relative placement hearing held on November 28, 2018, the Department reported that an RFA referral to Los Angeles was submitted on October 22, 2018, but it was submitted on the wrong form, so a corrected referral was submitted on November 6, 2018. The social worker had spoken with the maternal grandmother multiple times with an interpreter, but the maternal grandmother appeared to have difficulty understanding the information provided to her. The Los Angeles unit was impacted and had not yet assigned a worker to the referral. The court continued the relative placement hearing to coincide with the February 6, 2019, section 366.26 hearing.
At the February 6, 2019, hearing, the social worker reported that the Los Angeles RFA unit had closed the assessment referral on December 18, 2018, because the maternal grandmother's apartment was too small. The social worker also expressed concern regarding the maternal grandmother's protective capacity, since mother and the minors had lived with the maternal grandmother during periods of time when mother's boyfriend was injuring A.M. Mother requested another continuance of the relative placement hearing and indicated she also intended to file a section 388 petition for modification to seek reunification services. Mother represented that the maternal grandmother had rented a new apartment two days earlier in order to accommodate the minors, but was still being told that a larger apartment was required. The minors' foster home had been approved for adoption of the minors. The relative placement hearing was continued to February 20, 2019, to be heard along with any hearing that may be necessary on mother's intended petition for modification and the section 366.26 hearing.
On February 20, 2019, the court held the "pretrial on a contested [section] 366.26 and contested [section] 388, and also . . . placement hearing." Trial was set for the following day. Mother had filed a petition for modification seeking services or, alternatively, return of the minors. The petition also requested the court to get involved in the communication between the Department and the maternal grandmother in order to further the RFA process. Mother requested the juvenile court continue the section 366.26 hearing because the maternal grandmother was in the process of completing the RFA and mother wanted a contested hearing on placement. She argued that if the court did not wait for the RFA to be complete and then make a decision about relative placement, she would lose standing to appeal any placement decision. This was the only ground mother presented as cause for the requested continuance.
The Department and minors objected to continuance of the section 366.26 hearing, arguing the continuance was not in the minors' best interest because the maternal grandmother had not come forward for assessment until after disposition, there were psychosocial concerns regarding the maternal grandmother, and the minors were already placed in a home committed to adopting them. The juvenile court denied the request for a continuance, finding mother had failed to establish good cause. In making its ruling, the court noted that permanency was paramount and continuing the hearing was not in the minors' best interests. It further noted that it could take 90 days or longer for the assessment to be completed and it was speculative that the maternal grandmother would be approved for placement. It did not find continuance for the sole purpose of preserving mother's standing to appeal a denial of her request to place the minors with the maternal grandmother to be good cause.
At the contested hearing the following day, the juvenile court denied mother's petition for modification, noting it was not in the minors' best interest to be placed with mother and that it did not find mother's "plan" to "place" them with the maternal grandmother while she remained in custody to be either properly in evidence or a good plan. The court found the maternal grandmother's failure to exercise protective capacity when the minors lived with her prior to the minors' original detention rendered indirect placement with her not in their best interests. Specifically, it found it "not credible that the maternal grandmother did not observe or know about at least some of the [minor's] severe injuries, let alone why they were happening." Likewise, providing mother services was not in the minors' best interests. The juvenile court then found no exception to adoption applied and terminated parental rights.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing in order to present evidence that the minors should be placed with the maternal grandmother. In order to establish standing, however, mother must show that her personal rights were affected by the juvenile court's ruling denying her request for a continuance. (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) This she has failed to do.
In dependency proceedings, a parent's interest is in reunification and in maintaining a parent-child relationship. (See In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541.) While reunification efforts are ongoing, parents generally have standing on appeal to raise issues concerning relative placement. This is because one of the rationales for placing children with relatives is that, during reunification, "[a] relative, who presumably has a broader interest in family unity, is more likely than a stranger to be supportive of the parent-child relationship and less likely to develop a conflicting emotional bond with the child." (In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1489, 1493.)
On the other hand, when reunification is no longer being pursued, a parent is not aggrieved by placement determinations. Thus, in Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (Cesar V.), the appellate court held that a parent did not have standing on appeal to challenge the denial of a relative placement request after reunification services had been terminated because the ruling did not affect his interest in reunification with the children. (Id. at p. 1035.)
Here, another continuance in order to present evidence that the minors should be placed with the maternal grandmother would not have preserved standing because she cannot raise issues regarding relative placement after being bypassed for reunification services. Mother makes no showing that she was aggrieved by the juvenile court's denial of her request for a continuance. Her hope or desire to have continued contact with the minors after permanency is not a legally cognizable interest. Mother will have no legal right to maintain a relationship with the minors if her parental rights are terminated. Thus, as this is not " 'an interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the [order],' " the mother cannot be considered a party aggrieved on this basis. (Cesar V., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1035.)
For this reason, mother failed to show good cause for the continuance, rendering the juvenile court's denial of her request not an abuse of discretion. --------
Nor has mother shown that, had the juvenile court granted her request for a continuance she could have established a statutory exception, such as the relative caretaker exception to adoption. This exception to adoption provides that, when a child is found adoptable, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless it finds "[t]he child is living with a relative who is unable or unwilling to adopt the child because of circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, but who is willing and capable of providing the child with a stable and permanent environment through legal guardianship, and the removal of the child from the custody of his or her relative would be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the child." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Mother cannot establish a likelihood that this exception would apply here.
Even if the maternal grandmother was approved for placement of the minors, mother has not shown the relative caretaker exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), would have applied. Although the maternal grandmother had been unable to "state her commitment to adopt" the minors during the social worker's initial contact with her, there was no other indication that she was unwilling to adopt the minors. The record only demonstrates that the maternal grandmother intended to give mother (possibly unfettered) contact with the minors. Moreover, and perhaps most significantly, the exception would not have applied since the minors would not have been living with the relative for any length of time such that removal of the minors would have been detrimental to their well-being. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
Because mother has not shown that her interests at the section 366.26 hearing, which she requested be continued, were affected by the juvenile court's ruling, she lacks standing to appeal the denial of her request for a continuance of the hearing.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
BUTZ, J.