In re L.S.
Filed 8/7/06 In re L.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 L.S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL S., Defendant and Appellant. | F049653 (Super. Ct. No. JV5541)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. William G. Polley, Judge.
Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, and Kim M. Knowles, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Michael S. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his 10-year-old daughter, L.S.[1] He contends the court erroneously found L.S. adoptable, failed to comply with statutory requirements related to considering the child's wishes and her participation in the proceedings as well as abused its discretion by not finding termination would be detrimental to her. On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
In December 2004, the Tuolumne County Superior Court terminated appellant's parental rights to L.S. It also ordered the matter continued for 180 days directing the department to locate an adoptive home for L.S.
Leading up to the December 2004 hearing, respondent Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (the department) and an adoption specialist with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) initially recommended that the court continue the case for 180 days to identify a prospective adoptive parent for L.S. In making its original recommendation, the CDSS adoption specialist and the department implicitly characterized L.S. as difficult to place for adoption. L.S.'s foster mother was on the verge of losing her license which led to L.S.'s removal before the section 366.26 hearing. Thereafter, the department placed L.S. with her paternal grandmother, who was not interested in adopting her. L.S. was nine years old at the time, had been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and exhibited behaviors of impulsivity, lying, and some oppositional defiance. At the hearing, the department and a CDSS supervisor changed the recommendation to adoption.
On appeal, the department conceded it was error under section 366.26 for the court to both terminate parental rights and continue the case 180 days to locate an adoptive home for L.S. Due to unanswered questions about finding an adoptive home for L.S., this court concluded the error was prejudicial. (In re L.S. (June 23, 2006) [nonpub. opn.], F047254.)
In passing, we took the opportunity to note concerns our review of the record raised regarding the likelihood of L.S.'s adoption. In summary, it appeared that the original adoption specialist and later the CDSS supervisor, who provided the requisite opinions on L.S.'s adoptability, had not received potentially important information which could affect their opinions.
First, it was unclear whether the fact that L.S. was exposed in utero to cocaine, as well as the lack of improvement, despite medication, in her ADHD and the possible impact of her in utero exposure on her ADHD was ever shared with CDSS or the others, including the judge conducting the December 2004 hearing. Second, the court's interview of L.S. regarding her future, which was conducted outside the presence of counsel, was apparently never made available to counsel or CDSS. Third, it was unknown if CDSS had assessed whether L.S. had a close relationship with her paternal family members. In particular, L.S. had regular visits with her paternal aunt and the two shared a very warm, loving and close relationship. Apparently due to problems the aunt had with her special-needs son, the aunt was unable to adopt L.S. A department social worker even acknowledged it might be detrimental to L.S. if her contact with her aunt were severed. We concluded our discussion in this regard with the following statement: â€
