In re N.T. CA3

Filed 9/30/13 In re N.T. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou) ----

In re N.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SISKIYOU COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES C073406 DEPARTMENT, (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Respondent, SCSCJVSQ115001903)

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Marilyn T., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order summarily denying her petition for modification/enforcement of the guardianship visitation order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 395.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in summarily denying the petition because it was the sole means for enforcing the court’s visitation order. We reverse.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

FACTS The Siskiyou County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition to remove the minor from parental custody in August 2001 due to mother’s erratic conduct. The juvenile court terminated reunification services in February 2004 and placed the minor in long-term foster care until the court changed the permanent plan to guardianship in August 2008. The court reinstated the dependency in September 2011 and returned the minor to mother under a family maintenance plan. By December 2011, the minor felt he needed to run away to be safe and mother felt she needed additional support services. The court removed the 16-year-old minor from mother and placed him in foster care in Redding, California where he is doing well and has re-engaged in therapy. Mother resides in Montague, California, approximately 100 miles north of Redding, California.2 Mother had weekly visitation pending the section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minor. The report described the visits as “not . . . successful” and visits did not occur because either mother or the minor did not like the arrangements. The minor did not trust mother to behave appropriately and did not want to get in a car with her for visits because if mother started screaming or getting angry he wanted to be able to walk away. Mother did not want to visit the minor at the foster home. Mother believed the foster parents and/or the Agency were manipulating the minor to avoid visiting her. The Agency had tried to provide visitation in Redding many times with little cooperation from mother. Mother made erratic and conflicting demands, i.e., wanting to relinquish parental rights so the minor could be adopted by his caretakers but not agreeing to guardianship; wanting the minor transported to Yreka for joint counseling in place of visits; and wanting unsupervised visits but not going when a visit was scheduled.