In re Steven D.

Filed 6/2/06 In re Steven D. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Appeal from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Jan G. Levine, Judge. Affirmed

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Doreen D. (Doreen) is the non-related legal guardian of minor Steven D. (Steven). From 1992, when he was removed from his parents' home at age three, until February 2005, Steven was under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In 1994, he moved into Doreen's home under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). After he was removed from his parents' home, Steven was diagnosed with severe psychological and behavioral problems that affected him throughout the 10 years he was placed with Doreen. By 2004, those problems had intensified to the point where Steven was considered a danger to others, and needed acute psychiatric care in a residential treatment center. Funding for Steven's residential treatment was available through the Department of Mental Health (DMH), but not while Steven remained under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. All parties involved, including Doreen, agreed that termination of that court's jurisdiction was in Steven's best interests, and, based thereon, the juvenile court granted an application by DCFS to terminate jurisdiction in February 2005.

In July 2005, because Doreen disagreed with DMH's recommendation that Steven be transferred to a facility with a higher level of care, she brought Steven home to live with her. She then filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] to reinstate the juvenile court's jurisdiction over Steven. In September 2005, the juvenile court denied Doreen's petition.

Doreen appeals from the order of the juvenile court denying her section 388 petition. She contends that Steven's interests would be best served by continuing juvenile court jurisdiction and DCFS supervision, and that the court therefore abused its discretion by refusing to reinstate jurisdiction. She also contends that DCFS was equitably estopped from opposing the reinstatement of jurisdiction based on its earlier representation to her that jurisdiction could be reinstated if there were problems with Steven's treatment through DMH.

We hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doreen's section 388 petition. We also hold that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not applicable to the circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's order denying Doreen's section 388 petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 10, 1992, Steven (then three years, 10 months old) and two of his siblings were taken into custody by DCFS.[2] His mother, who was diagnosed as mentally retarded, and his father, who was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, were found by DCFS to be incapable of caring for the minors. On April 15, 1992, the juvenile court held a detention hearing on DCFS's petition under section 300, found that a prima facie showing of abuse and neglect had been made, and ordered Steven detained from his parents' custody. On July 29, 1992, the juvenile court held an adjudication/disposition hearing on the section 300 petition, declared Steven to be a dependent child, and removed him from his parents' custody.

A January 27, 1993, Review Report described Steven as â€