In re T.S.
Filed 4/23/07 In re T.S. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re T.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELENA G., Defendant and Appellant. | D049542 (Super. Ct. No. SJ011267) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter E. Riddle, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Elena G. appeals the court's determination at a post permanency planning review hearing not to return her son, T.S., to her home. She contends T.S. failed to receive notice as required by law and the court failed to inquire as to why he was absent at the hearing. We affirm the order.
FACTS
T.S., who was born in March 1987, has moderate cognitive impairment and suffers from mental health problems that resulted in multiple hospitalizations and require medication to treat. Elena also has mental health problems for which she does not receive treatment. Elena's failure to appreciate T.S.'s mental health problems and to obtain treatment for them led to the dependency, the removal of T.S. from her home and the termination of reunification services. The court ordered a permanent plan of a permanent living arrangement for T.S. and extended its jurisdiction over T.S. beyond his eighteenth birthday. Elena sought placement of T.S. with her and termination of jurisdiction.
At a trial held on September 27, 2006, T.S. was not present, but it was stipulated that if he had been called to testify, he would state that he wanted to return to Elena's home, where he felt safe.
Elena testified she wanted T.S. returned to her and stated she could provide for his needs. However, Elena also testified that she did not believe T.S. had any cognitive disabilities; she believed he was very smart and healthy. According to Elena, T.S. did not need any medications so she would not give them to him.[1] Elena also stated if T.S. were returned to her home, she would not work with the social worker and she did not believe the Regional Center was of any use to T.S. she would be his teacher.
A social worker testified about the filth in Elena's house during a home visit in August and T.S.'s progress in his current placement. She described how Elena's mental health issues interfered with her ability to care for T.S., and her failure or refusal to provide medication to T.S. and control his behavior.
DISCUSSION
Elena contends reversal is required because T.S. did not receive written notice as required by law (Welf. & Inst. Code, 295, subd. (a)(4) & (6)) and the court failed to inquire at the hearing when T.S. was not present whether he had been properly notified of his right to attend the hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 349.)
The Agency responds that Elena lacked standing to raise notice issues as to T.S. and waived the issue by failing to raise it below. Even assuming Elena could overcome these hurdles, she would not prevail.
There was clearly error here. Written notice was provided to T.S.'s caretaker, but not to T.S. When T.S. was absent from the hearing, the court erred by not specifically inquiring whether T.S. had received notice. This error was especially noteworthy because T.S. had attended some hearings in the past. However, "[e]rrors in notice do not automatically require reversal" and we will not reverse when, as here, the errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 903, 912.)
The notice irregularities in this case were clearly harmless. T.S.'s caretaker had actual notice and his attorney presented T.S.'s position to the court through a stipulation that indicated his desire to return to his mother's home. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Elena's own mental health problems rendered her unable to recognize or respond to T.S.'s mental health problems and needs and thus to provide a safe home for him. It is unlikely that had the notice irregularities not occurred, the court would have terminated its jurisdiction and returned T.S. to Elena's home.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] Although Elena several times stated she would not give medications to T.S., at one point in the hearing, Elena appeared to indicate she would do so.
