In re Keira S

Filed 6/27/06 In re Keira S. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

The mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] She argues that she should have been provided reunification services and that her rights were violated when her child was moved to a placement she opposed out of Santa Clara County. These issues are not cognizable in this appeal. The juvenile court's order bypassing reunification services can be challenged only by petition for extraordinary writ. The mother filed such a petition, which was denied in an opinion filed by this court on July 11, 2005. The mother did not appeal from the court's order removing the child from foster care and placing her out of county and that order is final and nonappealable. As to the order terminating parental rights, the mother has not raised any issue that the child is not adoptable or that any of the statutory exceptions to adoption apply. The court's order is supported by the evidence and we will affirm it.

BACKGROUND

We take the background of this case in part from our opinion filed July 11, 2005, denying the mother's petition for extraordinary relief. (Leticia S. v. Superior Court (July 11, 2005, H028738) [nonpub. opn.].)

The child was taken into protective custody as a newborn on January 31, 2005. On February 2, 2005, the Department of Family and Children's Services (the Department) filed a petition containing allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] and subdivision (j) [abuse of sibling]. The petition alleged that the child's two half-sisters had been sexually abused by the father, and that the mother should have known about the sexual abuse but denied that it had occurred. It further alleged that the children had witnessed domestic violence between the mother and a father of one of the half-siblings. The two half-sisters and a full sibling, a brother, had previously been removed from the home in January of 2004. Parental rights had been terminated as to the brother.

The child was ordered detained after a hearing on February 3, 2005, and she was placed in foster care, with visitation for both parents.

A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on April 26, 2005. The court found the allegations in the petition to be true. The social worker testified as an expert on permanency planning for children who have been abused or neglected. She testified that although the mother had indicated an interest in participating in a program or service dealing with the children's sexual abuse, she had never followed through with this. In the social worker's opinion, the child would be at an extreme risk if returned to the family because neither parent had dealt with the issue of sexual abuse. Therefore, it would not be in the child's best interest to offer either parent reunification services.

The court found the child to be a dependent child of the court and ordered that reunification services were not to be provided to either parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (11).) A hearing under section 366.26 to terminate parental rights was set for August 16, 2005.

The child remained in the foster home where she had been initially placed and the Department contacted relatives for permanent placement possibilities. The child's maternal aunt and the aunt's husband, who lived in Pennsylvania, were interested in having the child placed with them and in adopting her. A relative home study and adoption home study was ordered for this family through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. Also, the child's brother and a half-sister had been placed with the paternal grandparents of the half-sister, who lived in Monterey County. This family was also interested in having the child placed with them so that she could grow up with her brother and her half-sister. The foster mother, who had been caring for the child since her birth, was also interested in having the child remain in her care. The parents favored a placement with the foster mother or with the maternal aunt in Pennsylvania.

In late May, the Department informed the parents that it would be recommending that the court move the child from foster care to the home of the non-relative extended family member in Monterey County, where her brother and half-sister were living. The parents opposed this recommendation. The foster mother at the current placement also opposed the transfer and applied to the court for standing as a de facto parent. On June 28, 2005, the court ordered the child to be moved to the out-of-county placement. In a report dated September 7, 2005, the social worker wrote that the child was â€