Cindy L. v. Superior Court
Filed 4/4/06 Cindy L. v. Superior Court CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| CINDY L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest. | G036521 (Super. Ct. No. DP004644) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carolyn Kirkwood, Judge. Petition denied.
Cara Bender for Petitioner, Cindy L.
No appearance for Respondent.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Saul Reyes, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest, Orange County Social Services Agency.
* * *
Cindy L., mother of 10-year-old Paige F., seeks relief from findings and orders issued at a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.3 periodic review hearing at which the court found Paige's permanent plan of long-term foster care was no longer appropriate, denied mother's request for custody or renewed reunification services to facilitate the child's return, ordered mother's visitation restricted to one monitored visit per month, and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing[2] to consider a new permanent plan for Paige. Mother contends the court erred in all its determinations. She claims she is entitled to Paige's return or at least another six months of reunification because she and the child are bonded, she has diligently resolved the problems that led to the dependency more than five years ago, she is committed to Paige, and she now has resolved to do whatever the court requires to obtain the child's return.
Mother's resolution comes late and rings hollow against the five-year background in this case. We recently filed an opinion in mother's appeal from orders issued on June 1, 2005, at the conclusion of a six-month review hearing immediately preceding the one at issue here. (In re Paige F. (Mar. 10, 2006, G035784) [nonpub. opn.].) There, we rejected mother's challenge to the court's denial of her request for Paige's return on a trial visit or for increased visitation. In affirming, we found ample evidence supporting the court's determination that (1) increased visits would be emotionally damaging to the child, and (2) mother was not ready for Paige's safe return due to â€
