In re Cindy G. CA2/1

Filed 10/2/13 In re Cindy G. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re CINDY G., a Person Coming Under B246617 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK83847)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CATHERINE C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Debra L. Losnick, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed. Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

Catherine C., (Mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court summarily denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, subdivision (a)(1), to modify the order denying her family reunification services with her daughter, Cindy G., and terminating her parental rights with respect to Cindy. We reverse. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Cindy’s siblings, A.K. and S.G. were the subject of a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a)1, alleging that they were at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to domestic violence between Mother and S.G.’s father (Father) in the children’s presence. The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed the children from their home and ordered that they be suitably placed with monitored visitation for the parents. The parents were afforded family reunification services and ordered to attend parenting and domestic violence classes. At the six-month review hearing in May 2011, the court terminated reunification services for A.K. and S.G. and set the matter for a permanent placement hearing under section 366.26. Prior to the permanency planning hearing for A.K. and S.G., Mother gave birth to Cindy in August 2011. In January 2012, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition as to Cindy under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) based on the domestic violence between the parents including the allegation that Father hit Mother while she was pregnant with Cindy. The court initially released Cindy to Mother with family maintenance services. In February 2012, however, the DCFS removed Cindy from Mother’s custody when it learned that Mother would have to leave her current residence and that she was seen with Father. Cindy was placed in the same foster home as her siblings, A.K. and S.G. In May 2012, Mother filed a section 388 petition asking the court to restore reunification services with A.K. and S.G. In her petition Mother alleged that she had