In re Alicia T
Filed 5/16/06 In re Alicia T. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re ALICIA T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187573 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK50273) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEBASTIAN T., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Andre F. F. Toscano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
Alicia was born in November 1998 to Mercedes P. (mother) and appellant Sebastian T. (father). Father went to prison in 2000 and remained incarcerated throughout Alicia's dependency proceedings. On September 29, 2002, mother was murdered. A dependency petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] and Alicia and her three sisters were[2] detained in a foster home, where they have resided ever since. An attorney was appointed to represent the four girls. On January 28, 2003, Alicia was declared a dependent of the court[3] based on sustained allegations, inter alia, under section 300, subdivision (g) (parent incarcerated and unable to arrange for care). No reunification services were ordered, and a section 366.26 hearing was set to determine Alicia's permanent plan.[4] A paternal aunt offered to take Alicia and possibly two of the sisters, but refused to care for Alicia and all three of her sisters. Alicia did not want to live with paternal aunt. She was afraid of her, refused to be separated from her sisters, and was very attached to the foster mother. The dependency court denied paternal aunt's request as not in Alicia's best interest. Father did not seek appellate review of the orders made at the referral hearing. On October 25, 2005, parental rights to Alicia were terminated.
Father timely appeals from the parental rights termination order. However, he attacks the termination order by challenging the orders made at the referral hearing. He contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional allegations, the dependency court erred in failing to sua sponte appoint separate counsel for Alicia, and children's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to declare a conflict when the paternal aunt requested custody of Alicia.[5] We conclude the contentions are not reviewable in this appeal and affirm the parental rights termination order.
The orders made at the referral hearing are not properly a subject of review in this appeal, because the notice of appeal is insufficient. (Glassco v. El Sereno Country Club, Inc. (1932) 217 Cal. 90, 91-92.) The subject of appellate review is defined by the notice of appeal. (Ibid.) The notice of appeal â€
