Emma H. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 7/7/06 Emma H. v. Super. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| EMMA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. |
F050237
(Super. Ct. No. JD105694-00)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Robert Anspach, Judge.
Rory E. McKnight, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) from the juvenile court's visitation order as to her daughter E. issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing at which the court set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] We will direct the juvenile court to modify its order with respect to visitation but will otherwise affirm the order.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2003 after then eight-year-old E. was found in a state of severe neglect while in petitioner's custody. Petitioner was offered reunification services, the key component of which was mental health counseling to help her control her erratic behavior and angry outbursts. However, petitioner refused to comply and, in April 2005, the court terminated reunification services and ordered E. into long-term foster care. The court also ordered supervised six-hour monthly visits at E.'s discretion.
E.'s long-term care placement was reviewed in October 2005 and April 2006. According to the Kern County Department of Human Services (department), petitioner and E. visited weekly throughout the year following her placement in long-term foster care. E. also adjusted so well in foster care that the department recommended in its report for the April 2006 review hearing that the court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider awarding legal guardianship to E.'s foster parents.
At the review hearing on April 14, 2006, the court set the section 366.26 hearing for August 11, 2006. The court issued three orders with respect to visitation. The first and second orders stated respectively that visits with petitioner would occur weekly for two hours and that visits would be supervised by the department. The third order provided that â€
