From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. A.L. (In re Angel L.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 21, 2020
F079474 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020)

Opinion

F079474

01-21-2020

In re ANGEL L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.L., Defendant and Appellant.

Susan M. O'Brien, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Modesto, California, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 518079, 518080)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Susan M. O'Brien, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Modesto, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

-ooOoo-

Appellant A.L. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her now 16- and 8-year-old sons, Angel L.-L. and Julian L., respectively. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother's court-appointed attorney informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother's behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother filed a letter but failed to make the requisite showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------

DISCUSSION

The children were removed from the custody of their father, Angel L., in September 2017 by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) after Angel was arrested for engaging in domestic violence with his girlfriend. He had been raising the children for approximately six years and the children had little contact with mother during that time. The agency placed the children with a nonrelated extended family member.

Mother told the investigating social worker she was homeless, using methamphetamine and taking pills. She acknowledged her need for professional help to treat her drug addiction. She was also a party to a dependency case out of San Joaquin County regarding the children's one- and two-year-old half brothers and two-month-old half sister who were removed from her custody because of her drug use. A section 366.26 hearing was scheduled for October 2017 to consider terminating mother's parental rights to the half siblings.

The juvenile court ordered the children detained in September 2017 and the agency provided the parents referrals for services, including substance abuse. Mother entered the Nirvana drug treatment program but left against medical advice. By the jurisdictional hearing in November 2017, she was not participating in services. On December 14, 2017, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered reunification services for Angel but denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) because her reunification services in the half siblings' case were terminated.

In December 2018, the juvenile court terminated Angel's reunification services for noncompliance at a 12-month review hearing and set a section 366.26 hearing for April 16, 2019. By that time, the children had been placed in a prospective adoptive home with the adoptive parents of their half siblings. Nine days before the review hearing, mother entered His Way Recovery House, an inpatient drug treatment program in Manteca.

In a modification petition (§ 388) filed the day before the section 366.26 hearing, mother asked the juvenile court to vacate the hearing and provide her reunification services. She alleged in her petition that she remained a resident of His Way Recovery House and consistently tested negative for drugs and alcohol since her admission in December. As to why her proposed order served the children's best interests, she asserted "[i]t is always better for children to be with their parents." The juvenile court summarily denied mother's section 388 petition, finding she failed to show her circumstances had changed such that providing her reunification services served the children's best interests.

The juvenile court conducted the section 366.26 hearing on May 7, 2019. The parents appeared represented by counsel. The agency's recommendation was to terminate parental rights. Counsel for the children made an offer of proof that Angel L.-L., if called, would testify that he loved his parents very much, and "in a perfect world would be with them, but he [knew] that he [could not.]" He was happy where he was, wanted to be adopted and wanted the court proceedings to be over.

Mother's attorney made an offer of proof on her behalf that she loved her children very much and she believed they loved her. She visited them as often as permitted and visits went well. The children recognized her, and acted happy to see her. They called her "mom." Mother felt sad when the visits ended. She remained in His Way Recovery House where she had been since December 2018. She randomly drug tested and all test results were negative. She engaged in a 12-step program and participated in all meetings and counseling sessions offered at the program. She believed her religious faith was helping her overcome her addictions. She had recently found employment, which was teaching her financial responsibility. She had met the children's caregiver and believed he was a good man who was taking good care of the children and would continue to do so. She asked the court not to terminate her parental rights but to choose a permanent plan that would allow her to retain her parental rights, so she could petition for the children's return once she was rehabilitated. If, however, the court terminated her parental rights, she wanted continued contact with the children.

Angel's attorney made an offer of proof that Angel agreed with the agency's recommendation. He believed his sons were in a "great placement." He loved them very much and would always be there for them.

The juvenile court terminated parental rights after finding it was likely the children would be adopted and that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to them. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, the court orders termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the children are likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the children under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to adoption).

Mother did not challenge the evidence of the children's adoptability or argue any of the exceptions to adoption applied at the section 366.26 hearing. Nor does she do so on appeal. Rather, she informs this court she is employed full-time and believes herself capable of parenting the children with God as her foundation. She requests leave to file a supplemental brief raising these issues.

Since mother does not raise any issues from the section 366.26 hearing, she has failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. A.L. (In re Angel L.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 21, 2020
F079474 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. A.L. (In re Angel L.)

Case Details

Full title:In re ANGEL L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 21, 2020

Citations

F079474 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2020)