In re Noel R

Filed 4/13/06 In re Noel R. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Referee. Affirmed.

Mary S., the mother of dependent child Noel R., appeals an order of the juvenile court denying a section 388 modification petition filed by Noel's maternal grandmother requesting placement of Noel with her. Mary contends there were changed circumstances and it was in Noel's best interests to be placed with the grandmother. We conclude Mary does not have standing to raise this issue and in any event, the court properly denied the grandmother's modification petition. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2004, one-month-old Noel became a dependent of the juvenile court because his parents engaged in domestic violence. The court placed Noel in foster care and ordered relative home evaluations. The grandmother was willing to have Noel placed with her until he could be returned to Mary. However, Mary opposed this placement because she had a poor relationship with the grandmother, who had been abusive to her and was an alcoholic.

During the next six months, Mary did not make progress with her reunification plan. A home study for the grandmother did not approve her for placement because the grandmother had a back injury and her doctor would not clear her to care for Noel. At a six-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.

Thereafter, the grandmother filed a section 388 modification petition, requesting Noel be removed from his foster parents and placed in her home. As changed circumstances, she alleged her home was never properly evaluated and she had arranged for help with childcare, which would solve the problem of her back injury. She further alleged moving Noel to her home was in his best interests because it would allow him to have contact with family members, thereby preserving and strengthening his family ties, and she was willing and able to provide Noel with a safe, stable and permanent home.

The social worker reported Noel had been with his foster parents (who were granted de facto parent status) since he was eight days old and was thriving in a loving, stable environment. The de facto parents wanted to adopt Noel and were willing to continue contact with the grandmother. The social worker still had not received medical clearance for the grandmother to care for Noel. Based on the stability Noel had with his de facto parents, the social worker recommended he not be moved to another placement. Adoption was the recommended permanent plan for Noel. The de facto parents were likely to be approved to adopt him.

At a contested hearing on the grandmother's modification petition, the social worker testified Mary no longer opposed placing Noel with the grandmother. Placement with the grandmother had not been pursued because the grandmother could not get medical clearance. Additionally, because the grandmother did not recognize the severity of Mary's problems, the social worker was concerned about the grandmother's ability to protect Noel. The social worker was also concerned that the grandmother wanted to provide care for Noel on a limited basis and was planning to return him to Mary. Because Noel was strongly attached to his caregivers and saw them as his parents, it would disrupt his security to move him.

The court found that although there were some changed circumstances, placement with the grandmother at this point in time was not in Noel's best interests. Accordingly, the court denied the grandmother's modification petition.

DISCUSSION

In a motion to dismiss, and again in this appeal, Agency argues Mary lacks standing to challenge the denial of the grandmother's modification petition. We agree.

An appellant cannot urge errors that affect only another party who does not appeal. (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) In this regard, a parent is precluded from raising issues on appeal that do not affect his or her own rights. (In re Jasmine J. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1807 [father lacked standing to appeal termination of parental rights on ground he was denied hearing on placement of child with sibling because father's rights are not affected by this placement]; In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 [mother did not have standing to raise issue of minor's placement].)

The interests of relatives in their relationship with a dependent minor are separate from those of the parent. (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703.) Mary's interest in the dependency proceedings was to reunify with Noel or to prevent the termination of her parental rights. (In re Caitlin B. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1193-1194.) That interest was not affected by the denial of the grandmother's modification petition seeking placement of Noel with her.

Mary asserts she is an "aggrieved" party entitled to appeal because she supported having Noel placed with the grandmother and because denial of placement with the grandmother would substantially injure Mary's interest in continued contact with Noel. However, an appellant claiming to have standing must be injuriously affected by the trial court's ruling in an immediate and substantial manner, rather than as a nominal or remote consequence. (In re Joshua S. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 147, 150.) The decision denying placement of Noel with the grandmother affects Mary only nominally and remotely in that she no longer has a legally protected interest in continued contact with Noel. Because Mary is not legally aggrieved by the order as to the grandmother, she may not challenge it on appeal. (Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035.)

Even were the issue properly before us, no error occurred. The evidence showed it was not in Noel's best interests to be placed with the grandmother. Noel has lived with his current caregivers since he was eight days old and is thriving in a loving, stable home with the only parents he has ever known. His caregivers, to whom he is strongly attached, want to adopt him. Where, as here, " 'custody continues over a significant period, the child's need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role. That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child.' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)

Moreover, Mary continually moved into and out of the grandmother's home and had an unhealthy, codependent relationship with her. The grandmother did not fully appreciate the severity of Mary's problems and believed Mary would eventually have Noel returned to her. Removing Noel from a stable and secure home in order to place him in this environment was not in his best interests. (See In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 808.) The court did not abuse its discretion by denying the grandmother's modification petition. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.)

In light of our disposition, we need not decide the merits of Agency's motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. Agency's motion to strike a portion of Mary's reply brief is denied.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P.J.

IRION, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Apartment Manager Lawyers.