In re E.R. CA1/1

Filed 7/10/13 In re E.R. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re E.R., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137569 v. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. Nos. SARAH R., JVSQ-11-6055, JVSQ-11-6056 Defendant and Appellant.

Following termination of her parental rights after a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,1 S.R. (mother) filed this appeal, seeking correction of the court’s written order memorializing the oral pronouncement of judgment at the section 366.26 hearing, and requesting we direct the juvenile court to strike the orders and findings in paragraph Nos. 14 and 16 of Judicial Council Forms, form JV-320, which state that posttermination visitation by mother would be detrimental to the minors E.R. and L.R., and require that the minors be allowed open contact with their sister, D.C. Having reviewed the record, we conclude mother’s contention has merit and shall grant her request.

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

BACKGROUND This section 300 juvenile dependency case involves mother’s three minor daughters, D.C. (born 1996), E.R. (born 1998), and L.R. (born 1998). We recently chronicled the history of respondent Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services’ (Department’s) involvement with the family in Sarah R. v. Superior Court (Dec. 6, 2012, A136491) [nonpub. opn.] (Sarah R.), which we incorporate by reference. In Sarah R., we concluded the juvenile court’s finding that the Department provided or offered mother reasonable services was supported by substantial evidence and, as a consequence, denied mother’s petition for an extraordinary writ challenging the order setting a hearing under section 366.26. We pick up the procedural and factual history of the case after that point. On November 5, 2012, the Department filed and served notice the section 366.26 hearing would be held on January 4, 2013. The Department filed its section 366.26 report (report) on January 2, 2013, recommending that E.R. and L.R. remain dependents of the court, parental rights be terminated and adoption be selected as the permanent plan. The report states E.R. and L.R. are freshmen in high school and both have a 4.0 grade point average; they are adjusting well to foster care and have not required counseling, although both are aware counseling is available should they need it. The current foster parents to E.R. and L.R. are willing and able to adopt the children. Regarding contacts between mother and the children, the report states mother had 22 scheduled visits with E.R. and L.R. and attended 10 of them; five were cancelled due to illness or failure to appear by mother; seven of the 22 scheduled visits were between mother and E.R. only, and mother attended five of those. The last visit mother had with either of the children was on November 6, 2012. The Department recommended “no visitation at this time between the biological parents and the children. Neither [mother] nor [father] has been consistent in visiting with the children or in asking for visits. The prospective adoptive family does not wish to have postadoption contact with the birth parents but are willing to allow the children