LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services v. Superior Court
Filed 6/2/06 LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services v. Superior Court CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; DESIREE M. et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B189512 (Super. Ct. No. CK17610) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Valerie Lynn Skeba, Commissioner. Petition granted.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Lori B. Schroeder and Children's Law Center for the Minor.
Patricia J. O'Connell for Real Party in Interest Desiree M.
Eva E. Chick for Real Party in Interest Phillip G.
INTRODUCTION
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), joined by the minor, one-year-old Kiley G. (Kiley), challenges a juvenile court order that granted Desiree M.'s (mother) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition, removing Kiley from the home of her grandparents and half-sisters, where she had lived from birth, and placing her with her mother in California Department of Corrections (CDC) community drug treatment program. Kiley's presumed father joins with the mother in urging that the juvenile court's order be upheld.
In that the juvenile court's order granting mother's section 388 petition was not based on a discernable and articulated finding of changed circumstances that were in the best interests of the minor, we grant the petition and remand for de novo hearing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
May 2005 Detention
In May 2005, DCFS took newborn Kiley into protective custody due to a positive showing of methamphetamine and placed her with her maternal grandmother, Dawn G. (grandmother), step-grandfather, Allen G. (grandfather) and her 10- and 4-year-old sisters, whom the grandparents have adopted.
Five days later, mother was arrested on two felony charges and a misdemeanor charge of possession of a hypodermic needle. The father was in prison on theft charges.
June 2005 Jurisdictional/Dispositional Hearing
At the June 8, 2006 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing mother submitted on the petition, and the juvenile court adjudged Kiley a dependent of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), finding that: (1) the mother had a 10-year history of substance abuse, was a current methamphetamine abuser, had positive toxicology screens at both Kiley's and at siblings' births, and prior DCFS and juvenile court services had failed to resolve her drug abuse; (2) she was currently incarcerated and unable to provide care; and (3) Kiley's sisters were current dependents with whom the mother had failed to reunify.
The court ordered six months of reunification services for the father and denied services for the mother under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11).[2] The parents were granted monitored visits, with DCFS having discretion to liberalize.
The juvenile court found Kiley to be suitably placed, but advised the grandparents that it was very concerned about some comments the grandfather was reported to have made in the waiting room and admonished the grandparents that they were not to make negative comments about either parent in front of any of the children, and that reports of any interference with the father's reunification services or negative comments regarding either parent would be grounds to remove Kiley from their care.
September-November 2005 Hearings
In September 2005, the grandparents finalized their adoption of Kiley's sibling, D.H.
Thereafter, the court held a hearing to terminate jurisdiction of D.H.'s case. During the hearing, the court asserted that the grandfather had violated the court's admonition by making derogatory comments about the children's mother during the adoption hearing, and advised county counsel and Kiley's attorney to talk to the grandparents to inform them of the court's concerns about the grandfather's behavior.
In November 2005, DCFS submitted a report to the juvenile court that stated that although the grandfather was very opinionated and expressive, there was no basis for apprehension about Kiley remaining placed in the grandparents' home, and DCFS recommended that she remain there. The report noted the grandfather's concerns about the potential harmful effect of jail visits on the children and his doubts about the mother's readiness to assume parental responsibilities. The grandfather had rejected the social worker's suggestion that he take an anger management course, but DCFS noted that both grandparents were involved in the children's schools and activities, family outings, a support program for grandparents raising their grandchildren, and that the grandfather was also an active member of Alcoholic Anonymous (AA).[3]
The court then ordered the grandparents to be present at the December 2005
six-month review hearing, and ordered DCFS to report regarding the father's whereabouts and â€
