Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Samuel N. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. S. M

May 24, 2012

IN RE SAMUEL N. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
S. M., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. JD229808, JD229809 & JD229810)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.

In re Samuel N.

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

S. M., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her petition for modification of the minors' placement, terminating parental rights as to two of the minors, and placing the third in long-term foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, 388, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Appellant limits her argument to the placement of D.L. and contends the court erred in denying her petition for modification because the proposed change was in his best interest. We affirm.

Appellant does not challenge either the placement or the termination of her parental rights as to Samuel N. and Mike N., thereby abandoning those appeals. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) The appeals as to Samuel N. and Mike N. are dismissed.

FACTS

Two-year-old D. L. was detained in June 2009 due to appellant's substance abuse and placed in foster care with his half-siblings who were also detained. The maternal grandmother was assessed for placement but did not qualify and no other relatives were available for placement. At the initial hearing, appellant was ordered to disclose the identities of any maternal or paternal relatives of the minors. The Department of Health and Human Services (Department) assessed both the maternal grandfather, Andre M., and a family friend, Angela C., for placement. The preferred placement was with Andre M., reserving Angela C. as a backup placement. The maternal great-grandmother, Alice M., did not seek placement at this time although she was available to assist the maternal grandfather. In September 2009, the court ordered all the minors to be placed with Andre M. The court also ordered reunification services for appellant.

The review report filed in February 2010 recommended continued services for appellant. The Department was having problems with Andre M., who had not enrolled the oldest of the half-siblings in school and was not making dental and medical appointments for the minors. This was a particular problem for D.L. because a necessary hernia repair surgery could not be scheduled without a current child health exam on file. As a result, D.L. required emergency hernia repair surgery in January 2010. The surgeon wanted a follow-up appointment in two weeks, but Andre M. did not schedule it. There was no indication of behavioral problems with the minors and Andre M. was willing to be a guardian for them. The review hearing was continued.

In March 2010, the Department filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) to remove the minors from Andre M., alleging he was no longer an appropriate caretaker because he was not maintaining medical and dental appointments or enrolling the half-siblings in school. Andre M. absconded briefly with the minors to prevent removal. The court again ordered appellant to disclose the names of any maternal or paternal relatives of the minors and ordered the Department to evaluate any relative who came forward.

According to the detention report, by late February, the necessary appointments and school enrollment still had not occurred and the decision was made to remove the minors from Andre M. Alice M. did not seek placement of the minors at this time, believing they would be returned to Andre M.'s care. The minors were placed with Angela C., who was also a licensed foster parent. The Department recommended the minors not be returned to Andre M.

An addendum report reviewed appellant's progress in reunification and recommended termination of services because she failed to engage in the various programs. In April 2010, the court sustained the supplemental petition, removed the minors from Andre M.'s custody, terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court declined to make a specific placement order with Angela C.

In July 2010, the Department moved the minors from the placement with Angela C. for their safety. D.L. and his older half-sibling reported they were spanked repeatedly and the older half-sibling disclosed that other children in the home coached them to have sexual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.