In re Luna M.

Filed 6/21/07 In re Luna M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Phillip and Liz M., maternal grandparents of the minor, appeal from orders entered at the contested disposition hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  358, 360, 395.)^[1] Appellants contend the juvenile court erred in denying them visitation. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The minor was placed in protective custody at birth in May 2006 because the mothers ability to care for the minor was impaired by her serious mental health problems and recent psychiatric hospitalizations, and the mother had failed to reunify with the minors half sibling who had been freed for adoption. The detention report stated that the mothers mental health counselor, who had a prenatal meeting with appellants in an attempt to assist the minors mother in formulating a plan for caring for the minor, was concerned about the maternal grandparents who had many stories about being prosecuted by the government and [Child Protective Services]. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the relatives evaluated for placement.

The report for the jurisdiction hearing stated the mothers mental health counselor told the social worker that the minor should never be left alone with the maternal grandparents during visitation due to their delusional episodes. They have made numerous delusional bizarre statements. According to the report, only the paternal grandmother was being assessed for placement. The report recommended services only for the father and supervised visitation for the grandparents.

The juvenile court sustained the petition and set a disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, the court adopted the social workers recommended findings and orders, removing the minor from parental custody, ordering reunification services for the father and denying services for the mother.

As part of the visitation orders, the court ordered: There shall be no visitation between the child and the maternal grandparents . . . . The Court at this time finds that that visitation would be detrimental to the child. There is not an established relationship given the young age of the child. The evidence contained in this report established that permanency issues for the child are being impacted by the potential involvement of the relatives, and further establishes that . . . [a]t the time of one of the mothers hospitalizations, mental health professionals expressed ongoing concerns regarding the involvement of the maternal grand[parents] and their possible delusional episodes. It would not be appropriate to establish a pattern of visitation at this point in time. The Department can further assess such an issue and submit a [section] 388 petition to modify the court order should [it] believe that there is a sufficient change of circumstances and the best interest of the child would be served by allowing visitation. Appellants were present at the hearing, but did not respond to the courts ruling.

DISCUSSION

Appellants contend the court erred in denying them visitation. They contend the evidence did not support the courts order.

Respondent argues appellants did not challenge the order in the juvenile court and have forfeited the issue. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502.) However, appellants argument is, in part, that substantial evidence does not support the courts order. Such a challenge cannot be forfeited.^[2] (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 622.)

In a dependency proceeding, the court asserts jurisdiction over a child who is at risk of harm and establishes a framework in which the childs parent or legal guardian may reunify with the child. ( 202, subd. (a).) Because the purpose of the proceeding is to reunify parents and children, grandparents are not entitled to services. So, while visitation between the child and the parents is essential to reunification (In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580), visitation with grandparents is not. However, the Legislature has recognized that grandparents may have a special relationship to a child whose interests would be served by ongoing contact. ( 361.2, subd. (h).)

In dependency proceedings, a grandparent does not have a right to visit a dependent child, only a statutory right to have the juvenile court consider the issue. This consideration is guided by section 361.2, subdivision (h), which provides in relevant part: Where the court has ordered removal of the child from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361, the court shall consider whether the family ties and best interest of the child will be served by granting visitation rights to the childs grandparents. Whether, and under what conditions, grandparental visitation occurs is within the juvenile courts discretion.

The evidence before the court was that the mothers counselor, who had met with appellants when trying to formulate a plan to assist the mother in caring for the minor, informed the social worker of observed mental instability on the part of appellants. The counselor had witnessed bizarre and delusional statements by appellants which concerned her to the point that she felt it necessary to caution the social worker to place restrictions on any visitation between appellants and the minor.

The court complied with the statutory requirement to consider grandparental visitation and assessed the evidence in light both of the minors best interest in safety and stability and of the lack of any significant relationship between the minor and the maternal grandparents, concluding visitation would not serve the minors interests. Substantial evidence supported the courts order and no abuse of discretion appears. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.)

To the extent appellants briefs may be read to challenge the failure to investigate placement of the minor with them, the same evidence supports the social workers decision not to pursue investigation of appellants as a possible placement. ( 361.3.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying visitation to the maternal grandparents is affirmed.

BUTZ , J.

We concur:

HULL, Acting P. J.

ROBIE , J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

^[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[2] Appellants briefs contain several claims that erroneous and/or misleading information was provided to the court and discuss factual matters which evidently relate to the dependency proceedings of the minors half sibling. Although present in court, appellants did not attempt to correct the facts or otherwise dispute the evidence the court expressly relied upon in making its ruling. The evidentiary objection is forfeited. (In re Dakota S., supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502.) Moreover, appellants are bound by the record and may not now introduce new evidence in support of their claims. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)