In re Dakota M.
Filed 6/9/06 In re Dakota M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re DAKOTA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CYNTHIA B., Defendant and Appellant. | G036500 (Super. Ct. No. DP009710) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Saul Reyes, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Cynthia B., mother of now 11-year-old Dakota M., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights and freeing Dakota for adoption. Mother contends there is no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the benefit exception of Welfare and Institutions section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A)[1] is inapplicable. She argues the court should have ordered a permanent plan of legal guardianship for Dakota because of the strong parent-child bond. Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) contends the court's orders are correct: Mother's drug addiction and incarcerations prevented her from visiting her son and occupying a parental role in his life, and whatever benefits Dakota might derive from maintaining the legal relationship do not outweigh the benefits of stability and permanency of adoption by the paternal great aunt and uncle (aunt and uncle), with whom the boy has lived for the past two years.
The Legislature has a clear and unequivocal preference for adoption of dependent children when reunification efforts have failed. As stated in In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350, â€
