In re E.S.
Filed 8/31/06 In re E.S. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re E. S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAURA C., Defendant and Appellant. | B189544 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK53599) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Karen B. Stalter, 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.
_________________________
Laura P. (mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights with respect to E. S. and Y. S. Mother contends a single attorney could not adequately represent the interests of all four of her children involved in this case. We conclude any error in failing to appoint separate counsel for E. S. and Y. S was harmless and affirm the order. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 61-62.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case involves four of mother's children, E. P., G. P., E. S. and Y. S.[1] The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a dependency petition on October 3, 2003, alleging failure to protect, emotional damage and failure to provide support. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (c) & (g).)[2] At the time of detention, E. P. was thirteen years old, G. P. was nine, E. S. was three and Y. S. was nine months old.
At the detention hearing on October 3, 2003, the juvenile court appointed one attorney to represent all four children and ordered the children detained in shelter care. Based on counsel's indication the children did not wish to be separated, the juvenile court ordered the Department to attempt to place the children together. However, the Department was unable to locate foster parents willing to care for all four children in one home due to the difference in their ages. The two older children, E. P. and G. P., were placed in separate foster homes and their two younger half-siblings, E. S. and Y. S., were placed in another foster home. Within the month, Department placed all four children in a duplex foster home operated by members of the A. family. E. P. and G. P. were placed in one unit of the duplex, and E. S. and Y. S. were placed in the other. The Department reported the children were doing well and E. S. was happy to see his big brother, E. P. The social worker observed that E. S. cried when E. P. was out of his sight and clung to him.
On December 12, 2003, mother admitted the allegations of the dependency petition and the juvenile court ordered the Department to provide family reunification services.
On January 12, 2004, the A. family had an emergency that necessitated replacement of the children. The Department unsuccessfully searched for a home that would take all four of the children. E. P. was placed with his maternal aunt but was demonstrating behavioral and academic problems. Maternal aunt was unable to accept G. P. into her home due to his behavior, which include defiance, encopresis, temper tantrums, verbal aggression towards adults and physical aggression toward children. G. P. was receiving therapy twice per week and was placed in a â€
