Sonoma County Social Services Department v. Randy I.

Opinion

POCHÉ, Acting P. J.

Randy I. appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to Civil Code section 232, subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(7),

1

declaring her minor son, Clarence I. (Clarence), forever free from her custody and control, and referring the minor to the California State Department of Social Services, California Adoptions Service, for adoptive placement.

The trial court found that Clarence should be freed from the custody and control of appellant

2

because (1) appellant had neglected or abused the child who had been a dependent child of the juvenile court and removed from parental custody for at least one year (§ 232, subd. (a)(2)); and (2) Clarence had been in a foster home for more than one year and that return of Clarence to appellant would be detrimental to him and that the mother had failed and is likely to fail in the future to meet the other statutory responsibilities

[281]

designated in section 232, subdivision (a)(7).

3

The court also found that further attempts to reunify the family or return the child to appellant would be detrimental to the child.

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court findings in this regard. Instead, her sole challenge is procedural, namely, that

the trial court was required to order

family reunification services prior to terminating the parent-child relationship. We find no such mandate, and affirm.

Appellant first argues that rule 1376(b) of the California Rules of Court mandates that a superior court provide family reunification services prior to a section 232 judgment.

4

Rule 1376, part of Division la of the California Rules of Court, entitled “Juvenile Court Rules,” applies only to juvenile court proceedings, not superior court proceedings. As plainly stated in rule 1301: “The rules in this division apply to every action and proceeding to which the juvenile court law . . . applies and, unless they are elsewhere