Janna N. v. Kern Superior Court
Filed 6/15/06 Janna N. v. Kern Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| JANNA N., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. |
F050196
(Super. Ct. No. JD109207-00)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
David G. Duket for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) from the juvenile court's dispositional order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to her son J. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In December 2005, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) removed then 11-year-old J. from the care of his maternal grandmother, with whom he lived since birth, because she was very ill and unable to care for him and the house in which they lived was filthy and roach-infested. Petitioner happened to be living in the home at the time J. was removed but was not interested in helping maintain the home or in taking care of J. J. was placed in foster care.
J. was not the first of petitioner's children removed from her custody for neglect. Her other five children were adjudged dependents of the court. At the time of J.'s removal, reunification services for four of the children and petitioner's parental rights as to two of the children had been terminated. In light of the circumstances, the department filed a dependency petition alleging that petitioner neglected J. and failed to reunify with her children. (§ 300, subds. (b) (failure to protect) & (j) (abuse of sibling).) The juvenile court found the allegations true and set the dispositional hearing for February 15, 2006. In early February 2006, the department completed an adoption assessment and determined that J. was not likely to be adopted. In addition, J.'s foster family was not interested in providing him a permanent home. However, a family friend, Ms. K., had applied for placement and was in the process of being evaluated.
In its dispositional report, the department recommended the court deny petitioner reunification services because she failed to reunify with her other children. (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11).) The department also recommended the court set a status review hearing pursuant to section 366.3 but did not specifically recommend placing J. in long-term foster care.
The dispositional hearing was continued several times and rescheduled for April 18, 2006. In the interim, the department filed a supplemental dispositional report stating that Ms. K. was approved for placement and the department was in the process of placing J. in her care. Believing J.'s placement with Ms. K. might result in his adoption, the department revised its original recommendation and recommended the court set a section 366.26 hearing.
On April 18, 2006, the juvenile court conducted the contested dispositional hearing. Counsel for petitioner did not challenge the department's recommendation to deny petitioner reunification services but argued there was insufficient evidence to proceed to an implementation hearing. Counsel argued the department failed to include in its report evidence that Ms. K. was willing to provide J. a permanent home. Without such evidence, he argued, the court was compelled to order J. into long-term foster care. Accordingly, he asked for a continuance so that he could subpoena Ms. K. to testify.
The juvenile court denied petitioner a continuance of the dispositional hearing, denied her reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 11, 2006. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Citing section 358, petitioner argues the court erred in not considering Ms. K.'s intention to provide J. a permanent home before setting the section 366.26 hearing. Section 358, subdivision (b) provides in pertinent part that â€
