In re J.T
Filed 5/3/06 In re J.T. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re J.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JANNA N., Defendant and Appellant. | F049008
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD101936, JD101937, JD101938, JD101939)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Juvenile Court Referee.
Laura D. Pedicini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Janna N. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to her seven-year-old daughter J. and selecting adoption as the permanent plan goal for her four-year-old daughter V. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1) & (3).)[1] Appellant contends the court erred in a number of ways. First, she disputes the court's finding that each of her daughters was adoptable. Second, she argues the court should have found termination would be detrimental to each of the girls. Third, noting there was no evidence of V.'s wishes, appellant claims the court improperly selected adoption as its permanent plan for the child. Last, she urges the court should have appointed separate counsel for her children. On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
In October 2003, respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (the department) initiated the underlying dependency proceedings over appellant's four children, a seven-year-old son, five-year-old J., two-year-old V., and another son who was nine-months-old.[2] Appellant had left the children in the care of someone who was under the influence of methamphetamine. Appellant was also abusing drugs so as to impair her ability to provide the children regular care. Further, appellant had a live-in boyfriend who was a registered sex offender as a result of a conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14.
A month later the Kern County Superior Court adjudged all four children dependents and removed them from parental custody. The department placed five-year-old J. with her younger brother in the home of J.'s former foster parents, while it placed two-year-old V. and the oldest child in the home of a maternal relative. The children have remained in these respective homes ever since.
Despite 18 months of reunification services, the court could not return the children to appellant's care. Appellant participated in services, including regular visitation with the children, but was unwilling to separate herself from the live-in boyfriend. As a consequence, the court terminated reunification efforts and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for the children.
In anticipation of the section 366.26 hearing, the department prepared a social study in which it evaluated and made permanent plan recommendations as to each of the four children. In the case of the oldest child, the department determined that he was not adoptable due to the bond he had with his mother. Because his relative caregiver was willing to serve as the child's guardian, the department recommended a permanent plan of legal guardianship for him. The department evaluated the remaining children as adoptable and recommended the court terminate parental rights as to each child. The foster parents of J. and her younger brother were committed to adopting them. As for V., the relative caregiver was not committed to adopting her; V. had behavioral difficulties which the caregiver was unable handle. The department's adoption specialist, however, did not believe those difficulties overrode the likelihood of V.'s adoption. Indeed, the adoption specialist believed it was highly likely an adoptive home would be located
for V.
The court conducted a contested hearing on the matter in late September 2005. At the start of the hearing, appellant's trial attorney moved to have new counsel appointed for two of the four children, namely the oldest child and V. According to appellant's trial attorney, the department's differing permanent plan recommendations for these two children, who had lived together up to this point, but likely would be separated, created a potential conflict of interest for the children's counsel. When asked for her thoughts, the children's counsel stated â€
