In re Lisa L.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
In re LISA L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B191906 (Super. |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIETA L., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Valerie Skeba, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Deborah L. Hale, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
On a prior appeal, we affirmed an order denying Julieta L.'s petition to reinstate reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; In re Lisa Marie L. (
FACTS
A.
In April 2004, Lisa was detained at the age of two months based on reports that Julieta (then 17 and a dependent of the juvenile court) had physically harmed her baby. Lisa was placed in foster care with Linda and Charles W., and an amended petition was later sustained. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b).) Although Julieta visited Lisa regularly from the beginning, her other efforts to reunify were interrupted by probation violations, return trips to juvenile hall, and moves from one group home to another, then to her father's home (where there were drugs, alcohol, and fighting), and her participation in the court-ordered programs was unsatisfactory.
Julieta improved during the following 12-month period (during which Lisa was thriving in the care of Mr. and Mrs. W.) but missed some drug tests. Her visits with Lisa were increased to twice-weekly and then to unmonitored overnight visits, but by October 2005 Lisa was not doing well when she returned from visiting Julieta (she was clingy, cried more, and developed a nervous habit of scratching herself). Around the same time, Julieta was discharged from her drug program for noncompliance and was neglecting her own health (she is diabetic).
In November 2005, the dependency court (following the recommendation of the Department of Children and Family Services) terminated reunification services and set a permanent plan hearing -- but continued Julieta's unmonitored visits for so long as she remained in her programs (including a drug program) and tested weekly.[2]
In February 2006, Julieta filed a section 388 petition asking for the reinstatement of services and an order returning Lisa to her home. The petition was denied on the ground that renewed reunification services would not be in Lisa's best interest. The court ordered a completed home study for Mr. and Mrs. W., continued Julieta's visits, and set a contested section 366.26 hearing. As noted at the outset, we affirmed these orders.
B.
While the first appeal was pending, Julieta asked the dependency court to appoint an expert to conduct a bonding study (hoping for a report that would persuade the court not to terminate her parental rights). (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Lisa's lawyer joined the request (hoping for information that would help her decide on Lisa's behalf â€
