Tanya G. v. Superior Court

Filed 8/24/06 Tanya G. v. Superior Court CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Tanya G. (Tanya), the de facto parent of her niece, petitions for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order upholding the removal of the child from her home and the child's placement with a foster care prospective adoptive family. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.28[1]; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 38.2, 38.3.[2]) Real party in interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau opposes the petition. We deny the petition on its merits.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At almost three months of age, D.P.[3] (the child) was placed with her maternal aunt Tanya after the court declared the child a dependent based on her mother's parental impairment. About one year later, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and the child was placed in the exclusive custody of the Bureau for adoptive placement. By then, Tanya had been granted de facto parent status and she had applied to adopt the child as a single parent; she had also added to her application her boyfriend, J.B., as a second prospective adoptive parent. Nine months later, on September 7, 2004, Tanya and J.B. had been approved as an adoptive placement for the child. It was expected the adoption would be finalized by January 2005.

However, shortly after the adoptive placement was completed, the adoption agency social worker was unable to contact Tanya and J.B. by telephone. In response to a letter sent to them, the prospective adoptive parents informed the Bureau's social worker that they had been evicted from their home and they had moved to Amador County to live with Tanya's sister N. in her two-bedroom apartment. The family had no moving plans and they were unable to provide the adoption agency worker with a telephone number for future contact. The Bureau's social worker requested a one-month continuance of the adoption to allow an assessment of the child's living conditions. The court granted a continuance, and directed that the adoption was not to be finalized before the next review hearing then scheduled for February 16, 2005.

Before the February 16, 2005, review hearing, the Bureau's social worker reported on the prospective adoptive family's status. Tanya admitted the family had become behind on their rent and other bills, and their car had broken down. Tanya had not notified the Bureau of her difficulties because she was afraid the child would be removed. The worker informed Tanya of available funding to secure housing and the importance of keeping in touch with the Bureau. The worker was also concerned the prospective adoptive parents had not stayed in contact with the Bureau, and they had been less than honest with the Bureau about their circumstances. Because the family was then living in Amador County, the Amador County Child Protective Services agreed to supervise the case. The Bureau's social worker recommended that the adoption should not be finalized until the prospective adoptive parents found appropriate housing. In its February 16, 2005, order, the court delayed the adoption for three months. The court also directed the Bureau's social worker to make unannounced home visits, and to arrange for the prospective adoptive parents to be tested for drugs and alcohol.

In the Bureau's report submitted before the May 18, 2005, review hearing, the Bureau's social worker reported Tanya and J.B. had found appropriate rental housing on May 1, 2005, in Calaveras County. The Bureau had assisted Tanya in renting the house by giving her deposit money. Both Tanya and J.B. had not consistently tested for drugs. The Bureau recommended that the court direct both prospective adoptive parents to submit to drug tests in Calaveras County, and that the family should be supervised to ensure their stability. On May 18, 2005, the court continued the matter for another three months.

In the Bureau's report submitted before the August 17, 2005, review hearing, the Bureau's social worker reported she had no information indicating the prospective adoptive parents would be sufficiently stable to adopt the child in the near future. Having been evicted from their home in Calaveras County, the prospective adoptive parents were again homeless and living with Tanya's sister, N., who had moved into a large rented house. Since May 2005, Tanya had not been tested for drugs. J.B. also reported he had a difficult time drug testing because of his work schedule. At the next review hearing, the Bureau planned to recommend either proceeding with the adoption, changing the child's permanent plan to long-term foster care, or removing the child from Tanya's home and finding another adoptive home.

At the August 17, 2005, hearing, Tanya was present. The Bureau's social worker was directed to visit the child's home. The court informed Tanya that both she and J.B. had to comply with the drug testing directive. Tanya was asked to submit to a drug test that day, but she was unable to complete the test. She was informed the court considered that a â€