In re April N.
Filed 10/23/06 In re April N. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re APRIL N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Objector and Appellant. | G036563 (Super. Ct. No. J-430380) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carolyn Kirkwood, Judge. Requests for judicial notice. Order reversed and remanded. Requests granted.
Ronald D. Wenkart; Best Best & Krieger and Maria E. Gless for Objector and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
This appeal concerns whether the juvenile court erred by declaring objector Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) responsible for implementing the individual education program for a dependent of the juvenile court eligible for special education and related services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; IDEA.) Since the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to issue its ruling, we reverse the order and remand the matter for further proceedings.
FACTS
In September 1994, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) took the then two-year-old child into protective custody due to her parents' unresolved substance abuse problems. The juvenile court subsequently sustained SSA's dependency petition and declared the child a dependent of the court. When the parents failed to comply with a proposed family reunification plan, the court terminated the services. At an August 1996 permanency planning hearing, the court selected adoption as the permanent plan, terminated parental rights, and ordered SSA to retain custody of the child.
In mid-1995, the child entered what became the first of several foster family and group home placements. While living in a prospective adoptive home in Santa Ana, the child began to display both emotional and academic problems. She had difficulty adjusting to the placement and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Although the child performed well on standardized tests, she performed below grade level in school. In February 2001, the court named an individual to represent the child as a court appointed a special advocate (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 100 et seq., 356.5)
During this time, court documents first mention the prospect of developing an individual education program (IEP) for the child to address her academic needs. At a December 21, 2001 hearing, the juvenile court also appointed an educational attorney to represent the child. The school initiated an IEP for the child in early 2002, providing special services in math.
In August, the prospective adoptive mother returned the child to Orangewood Children's Home (Orangewood) where she remained until February 2003. The child attended the William Lyon School, the academic facility established for children residing at Orangewood. While the child did well academically, her social worker reported the child â€
