In re R.H.

Filed 5/3/06 In re R.H. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Lana H.

Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Lawrence H.

Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, Robert M. Pepper, Principal Deputy County Counsel, and Lilia Wilkerson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Richard Pfeiffer for Minor.

Lana H. (hereafter mother) and Lawrence H. (hereafter father) appeal from the trial court's order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387^[1] supplemental petition pursuant to which the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) removed 13-year-old R. from the home of mother and father, to which he had been returned following the six-month review hearing, and ordered a planned permanent living arrangement as the disposition/permanent plan. Mother and father raise various challenges to the trial court's order. Mother also challenges the trial court's appointment for her of a guardian ad litem. We agree with their assertion that the evidence does not support the trial court's jurisdiction finding on the supplemental petition. We also agree with mother's challenge to the order appointing the guardian ad litem. Therefore, we will reverse the trial court's jurisdiction and disposition orders on the section 387 petition and will also reverse the order appointing a guardian ad litem for mother.

MOTION TO STRIKE MINOR'S BRIEF

Father filed a motion to strike the minor's brief because it contains a postjudgment statement that minor's counsel obtained from R. regarding his current living arrangement. We agree that the statement cannot be considered because it was made after the trial court proceedings and therefore is not part of the record on appeal. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396.) However, we need not strike the minor's entire brief. Instead, we will construe father's motion as an objection to the offending statement and will strike R.'s postjudgment statement from the minor's brief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2003, DPSS detained R. (then 12 years old), and two of his older siblings,^[2] M. (then 16 years old), and D. (then 14 years old),^[3] and filed section 300 petitions alleging that father, who has a history of hitting R. in the head with his open hand, had assaulted R. with a glass and thereby caused a cut over the child's left eye; that father had been sexually inappropriate with M. in that he has tied her up and tickled her resulting in her breasts being exposed and â€