In re A.V.
Filed 7/12/06 In re A.V. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
----
| In re A.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| LASSEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REANNE W., Defendant and Appellant. |
C051252
(Super. Ct. Nos. J4063, J4064)
|
Reanne W. (appellant), the mother of A.V. and A.R. (the minors), appeals from orders of the juvenile court establishing a guardianship for each minor and granting appellant visitation with the minors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court improperly delegated its authority to the guardians to determine all aspects of visitation, including whether any visits would occur, which appellant argues was an abuse of the court's discretion. Disagreeing with that contention, we shall affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The minors are half-brothers. In separate dependency proceedings, each minor was adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. Appellant was incarcerated following her conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
As to each minor, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) recommended guardianship as the appropriate permanent plan. The minors had visited with appellant on a supervised basis at her penal institution. DHHS recommended that visitation between appellant and the minors occur at the discretion of the guardian for each minor.
At the November 9, 2005, section 366.26 hearing, appellant objected to the proposed guardianship, and complained about the sporadic nature of the visitation between herself and the minors. Appellant also expressed her concern about the recommendation to grant each guardian discretion regarding visitation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court adopted the orders recommended by DHHS, except the court ordered its jurisdiction to continue until March 1, 2006, and granted appellant twice-monthly visitation with the minors.
Discussion
Appellant contends the juvenile court â€
