In re Emily M

Filed 6/27/06 In re Emily M. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sherri S. Sobel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Lisa M. for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________

INTRODUCTION

Lisa M., Emily M.'s maternal great aunt, appeals from the order in which the dependency court concurred with the decision of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to remove Emily from her custody. We affirm the order.

FACTS

On August 29, 2005, the dependency court terminated the parental rights of Jennifer M. and Jeffrey D., Sr., thereby freeing Emily for adoption.[1] At the time, Emily was living with appellant, who wished to adopt Emily.

On October 7, 2005, DCFS removed Emily from appellant's home and placed her with another family. DCFS's action was the result of safety concerns it discovered during an investigation that was prompted by a letter submitted to the dependency court by Jeffrey D., Sr., after termination of his parental rights. Jeffrey D., Sr., who was in prison, claimed Emily was at risk in appellant's home.

DCFS's investigation revealed that despite its request that appellant not permit her son, Clifton M., to live with her, she permitted him to do so. Appellant also failed to inform DCFS that Clifton had set a fire in her home while Emily was living with her, and appellant denied DCFS access to her teenage daughter for the purpose of inquiring about a sexual abuse allegation involving Clifton. DCFS further determined that on July 7, 2005, Clifton was arrested for driving without a license. Clifton told police that he did not have a license but that his mother had permitted him to drive her car.

With respect to the arson committed by Clifton M., DCFS learned from the police report that appellant told police that Clifton ran into the house and said he was going to burn the house down. He then retrieved a plastic gas can from the garage, walked to the front bedroom, poured gasoline on the floor and ignited the gas. Clifton allowed the fire to burn for a few seconds before he stomped it out. DCFS was gravely concerned about Clifton's behavior, as well as appellant's failure to report the arson incident to DCFS, her inability to control Clifton and her conduct in permitting Clifton to live with her despite DCFS's request that he not reside there.

On November 15, 2005, the trial court held a hearing to determine if DCFS abused its discretion in removing Emily from appellant.[2] After considering the evidence, which included appellant's testimony, the dependency court determined that appellant was an inappropriate caregiver and that DCFS's decision to remove Emily from appellant's care was correct. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After reviewing the record and researching potential issues, counsel sent us a letter stating, pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, that he was unable to file an opening brief on the merits. Following receipt of counsel's letter, we informed appellant that she had 15 days to review the redacted record and 30 days thereafter to submit personally any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider.

Appellant has submitted a letter in which she, among other things, claims to have done everything she was required to do, voices her disagreement with DCFS's decision to remove Emily from her home, talks about her family life and the incidents that prompted Emily's removal from her care, describes the devastation she and her daughter have experienced since Emily's removal and asks that Emily be returned to her. Appellant, however, does not challenge the propriety of the proceedings below and does not assert a legal basis for reversing the court's November 15, 2005 determinations that she is an inappropriate caregiver and that DCFS's decision to remove Emily from appellant's home was correct, and our independent review of the record discloses none. We therefore uphold the order.

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

SPENCER, P. J.

We concur:

MALLANO, J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.

[1] We subsequently affirmed the order terminating parental rights. (In re Emily M. (Mar. 29, 2006, B185576) [nonpub. opn.].)

[2] Once the dependency court frees a child for adoption and transfers her care, custody and control to DCFS for adoptive planning and placement, DCFS has â€