In re Angel E.
Filed 7/18/06 In re Angel E. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| In re ANGEL E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B186341 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BK00350) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL E., Objector and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan Levine, Judge. Affirmed.
Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Wiiliam D. Thetford, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
_______________________
A 12-year-old minor appeals from an order terminating dependency jurisdiction on the ground that it was not in his best interest. He contends the court abused its discretion by terminating jurisdiction, because the decision deprives him of future access to emancipation services under the Independent Living Program available to 16- to 18-year-old wards in non-relative legal guardianships. The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend jurisdiction at this time; the minor can seek access through his guardian by subsequent petition. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Twelve-year-old Angel E. has been a dependent of the juvenile court since age four. (Welf & Inst. Code,[1] § 300.) At age 10, he was placed with foster mother Laura B. When he was 11 years old, finding it would be detrimental to return Angel to his parents, the court appointed Laura his non-relative legal guardian. (§ 366.26.)
Eight months later, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or Department) reported that Angel liked Laura's home, felt welcome in the family, appeared alert and in good spirits, performed well at school, participated in the school band and the Catholic Big Brothers and Big Sisters program, and made new friends. Angel also responded well to medication and therapy for his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He further had no developmental disabilities and was ineligible for Regional Center services. Because Angel adjusted well to placement and Laura met all his needs, DCFS recommended that dependency jurisdiction be terminated.
At the August 31, 2005 post-permanent plan review hearing (§ 366.3), when the court inquired if jurisdiction should be maintained, Laura responded, â€
