In re K.M.
This is the second appeal in this case following the juvenile courts hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The first appeal, case No. E038817, was brought by the San Bernardino County Department of Childrens Services (the Department) and minors Child 1 and Child 2 (the girls), who claimed that the court erred in failing to issue a finding that the girls were adoptable when it found that their siblings were adoptable. They further contended that the court abused its discretion by finding that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), exception applied to deny the request for termination of the parental rights to them. In an unpublished decision, we agreed with the Department and the children and reversed the orders as to Child 1 and Child 2, which denied the request for termination of parental rights and selected guardianship as the permanent plan. Specifically, Court concluded that the record supported the courts implied finding that the girls were adoptable, and Court held that the courts decision to deny termination of parental rights based on the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception was contrary to the law, not supported by the evidence, and amounted to an abuse of discretion. The matter was remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.
On remand, the juvenile court found that the girls were likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights. Michelle J. (Mother) now appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to the girls. She contends she was not given notice that the Department was recommending termination of parental rights or that the court was going to conduct a section 366.26 hearing. The Department disagrees substantively, and further moves for a dismissal of this appeal on the grounds the hearing held on remand was not a section 366.26 hearing so the statutory notice was not required. It further argues that Mother was provided notice of the hearing, was ordered to attend, and the purpose of the hearing was to implement the order of this court.
Comments on In re K.M.