In re K.C.
Filed 7/27/06 In re K.C. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| In re K.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B186780 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK54223) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULY B., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant July B. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's terminating family reunification services, denying Mother's request to modify the disposition order, and denying grandmother's request for custody. The child, K.C., is now in the home of Brenda, a cousin by marriage. Concluding the juvenile court inadvertently applied a test for termination of reunification services intended for children less than three years old, when K.C. was older than three years old, we shall reverse and remand with directions to evaluate whether Mother should, in light of any subsequent events, receive additional reunification services.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
Detention of K. and filing the petition in December 2003
K.C., then just over three years old, came to the attention of the Department in December 2003, when her parents were arrested in her presence.[1] Mother, who handed the child over to a drunk gang member in a restaurant, was then on parole and under the influence of drugs. The child was detained and placed in the care of her maternal grandmother (Grandmother), who immediately stated she would try to adopt the child. The Department was ordered to provide family reunification services and concurrent permanency planning services. Monitored visits were ordered for both parents, at least weekly if incarcerated nearby and at least two times a week once released from custody.
On December 31, 2003, with Mother present, the court advised Mother that the court, her attorney and the Department would consider the address she gave as where to send notices unless she informed them in writing of any change of address. Parents were to have monitored visits at least twice a week. Mother had a six-year-old warrant and was in a Proposition 34 program.
A petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, filed December 26, 2003, was sustained based in part on Mother's drug use.[2] In February 2004, Mother pleaded no contest to the petition. Paragraph 5(d) of the waiver and plea stated, â€
