In re X.C.
Filed 2/8/07 In re X.C. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re X.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE C., Defendant and Appellant. | F050957 (Super. Ct. No. JD107724)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
George C. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his son X.C.[1] Since his birth in 2005, X.C. has lived with his paternal grandparents, who were identified in the trial court as the child's prospective adoptive parents. Appellant contends for the first time that the trial court should have considered the ramifications of an intrafamilial adoption and inquired about the grandparents' wishes regarding adoption versus legal guardianship for X.C. On review, we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Because the procedural and factual history of X.C.'s dependency is not pertinent to this appeal, we do not recite it here. In summary, respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (department) detained X.C. at birth based on his parents' inability to provide adequate care for him. Neither parent successfully completed reunification efforts in the ensuing dependency proceedings. The Kern County Superior Court thereafter set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for X.C. At the section 366.26 hearing, it was undisputed that X.C. was an adoptable child and his paternal grandparents were committed to adopting him. Neither parent proffered any evidence or argument that adoption would be detrimental to the child.
DISCUSSION
Appellant never presented and the appellate record does not include any evidence of his parents' alleged reservations about adoption nor did appellant ask the superior court to find adoption would be detrimental to X.C. Nevertheless, he now contends the court should have investigated and considered whether the so-called â€
