In re A.H.

Filed 3/14/07 In re A.H. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jacqueline H. (Jacqueline) is the maternal grandmother of A.H., A.L.H., J.C., and H.H. She appeals from the juvenile courts denial of her request for de facto parent status. We find no errors and will affirm the judgment.

In December 2005, the children came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) when their mother (Mother) tested positive for illegal drugs upon her admission to the hospital for childbirth. Mother admitted that she had used methamphetamine, marijuana, and drank excessively.

She also had prior history with DPSS for allegations of physical abuse as to her two older children from 1998 through 2000. A.L.H. was a baby when he was found with multiple fractures of various stages of healing. A.H. and A.L.H. were removed from Mother and placed in out-of-home care for one year. They were returned to Mother, and the dependency was eventually terminated.

Jacqueline was interviewed at her house. She did not deny or admit knowing that Mother had used drugs. However, she stated that it was clear now that Mother did use drugs, as Mothers drug screen came back positive for drugs.

The children were taken into protective custody and placed with a maternal aunt. The children were later removed from the maternal aunt, as the home failed to pass a home inspection.

Jacqueline requested placement of the children but disclosed that she had a misdemeanor conviction about 10 years ago. She submitted to a live scan, and DPSS began the process of assessing her for placement.

On December 30, 2005, DCS filed section 300 petitions on behalf on the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).^[1]

At the January 3, 2006, detention hearing, Jacqueline was present. The juvenile court found a prima facie showing and detained the children. The court also ordered DPSS to conduct a forthwith assessment of Jacquelines home for placement. The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was set for February 7.

The following day a social worker went to Jacquelines home and determined that it met Title 22 standards. Along with Jacqueline, several others resided in the home: her high-school aged son, her nephew, and her two nieces. The home had five bedrooms. Jacqueline had live scanned on December 29, 2005, and was informed that it would take approximately one month for the results. The social worker indicated that she would wait to see the results of the live scan before determining whether any action was necessary on Jacquelines misdemeanor conviction. Jacqueline telephoned the social worker almost daily during that time, inquiring whether the live scan results had been received by DPSS.

DPSS received the live scan results on February 10, 2006, and submitted a criminal exemption packet for approval. However, the exemption packet did not qualify for a simplified version, and Jacqueline was informed she would need to submit additional paperwork.

In a jurisdictional/dispositional report, the social worker recommended that the children be placed in out-of-home foster care until a relative assessment cold be approved. The social worker noted that the findings for relative placement had not yet been received, but she was expecting to place the children with Jacqueline upon approval of her home. When A.H. was asked where he wanted to live, he replied, [A]t my grandmas house. I want to be with relatives.

Jacqueline telephoned the social worker numerous times regarding the exemption and was frustrated and upset that the process was taking so long.

On February 6, 2006, amended petitions were filed on behalf of the children adding an additional allegation pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), that Mother administered inappropriate physical discipline to the children on multiple occasions by hitting the children with a belt, a broom, and extension cords.

On March 10, 2006, the social worker was informed that two additional criminal hits had been captured on Jacquelines live scan results, which resulted in the exemption package being rejected. Jacqueline denied those hits belonged to her. The social worker indicated that further investigation by DPSS would be required.

After several continuances, a contested jurisdictional hearing was held on April 12, 2006. The court found the allegations in the amended petitions true and formally removed the children from parental custody. Mother was offered reunification services and ordered to participate. DPSS still had not received an exemption for Jacqueline, and the court continued the children in their respective foster homes. A.H., A.L.H., and H.H. were placed together in a confidential foster home, while J.C. was placed with her paternal grandmother. A six-month review hearing was set for August 24, 2006.

On April 27, 2006, Jacquelines exemption was approved, and her home was certified for placement. However, on May 17, 2006, the social worker informed Mother that the children would remain in their current foster homes for the time being. The children had been well cared for in their respective foster homes, and both their physical and emotional needs were being met.

Jacqueline had been attending visits along with Mother. During visits, Jacqueline, Mother, and other family members tended to be very critical of the people caring for the children. Jacqueline had been observed whispering and questioning the children. In addition, after a July 2006 visit, Jacqueline became verbally hostile towards one of the caregivers.

On August 10, 2006, Jacqueline filed a requests for de facto parent status for each of the children. In support of her requests, she stated that each of the children, including baby H.H., who has been removed from Mothers care at birth, had lived with her from the time they were born until September 2005. She alleged that she had provided for all of the childrens developmental, emotional, and mental needs. She also stated that she had maintained the childrens health care and had engaged in many activities with them, such as yard work, family gatherings, church, and homework. She further claimed that she had provided the children with all of the love, security, and stability they needed.

The hearing on Jacquelines request for de facto parent status was held on September 8, 2006. The court denied the request, finding that Jacqueline did not meet the requirements for de facto parent status because she had never actually been in the role of parent to the children. The court noted, Although [Jacquelines] declaration indicates that the children have lived with her from 97 to 05, [she] also indicates that while they were in her house mom was also there. [] So [Jacqueline was] actually in the role of a grandma as opposed to a mom. . . . The court summarized that though Jacqueline loved the children she acted in the role of grandmother, not parent, and therefore did not meet the requirements of de facto parent status.

Jacqueline appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth an integrated statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have invited Jacqueline with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and she has done so. In her one-page supplemental letter, Jacqueline merely notes that she had applied for, but was denied, de facto parent status of the children. Her letter does not contain any arguments but notes that she had appealed the decision and was appointed counsel. She further notes, My appellate counsel filed a Sade C. brief on my behalf and requested that I be granted 30 days to personally file a supplemental brief. This letter constitutes my supplemental brief, which I respectfully submit to this court for consideration.

Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P.J.

McKINSTER

J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.

^[1] All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.