In re Sara R.
Filed 4/28/06 In re Sara R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SARA R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE V. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G036004 (Super. Ct. Nos. DP008890, DP008892, DP008893 & DP008894) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis Keough, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jorge V.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sonia M.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy County Counsel and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Linda M. Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Minor Jose M.
Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for the Minors Sara R., Mercedes M., Irene M. and Annalisa R.
* * *
Sonia M. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court, terminating her parental rights to daughters Sara, Mercedes[1], Irene and Annalisa, and freeing them for adoption. Sara's father Jorge V. joins in Sonia's appeal as to Sara, and has filed his own appeal as well. Sonia argues the court's order was erroneous for three reasons. First, Sonia contends the benefits of maintaining the strong bond between herself and the girls outweighs any benefits they would receive through adoption by their current foster parents. Second, she contends the girls' sibling bond with their brother, Jose, who will not be freed for adoption, likewise outweighs the benefits of that adoption. And third, Sonia contends the court committed reversible error in allowing both Jose and the girls to be represented by the same attorney in connection with the issue of whether the girls should be freed for adoption, despite the fact their interests were conflicting. In his brief, Jorge argues the sibling bond issue only.
Jose and the girls are represented by different counsel on appeal. The girls' attorney joins respondent Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) in urging us to affirm the order. Jose's counsel has a harder task, and makes clear she believes Jose's interests were prejudiced as a practical matter in the proceeding below, because there was no advocate to ensure that his distinct concerns about the importance of maintaining post-adoption contact with his sisters was protected. However she acknowledges the error was not â€
