In Re Corrine W.

64 Cal.Rptr.3d 819 (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 427 In re CORRINE W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Y.C., Defendant,

Corrine W., Movant and Appellant.

No. A115584. Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Four.

August 22, 2007. Courtney Phleger, for Appellant.

Silva no B. Marchesi, County Counsel, Steven P. Rettig, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

SEPULVEDA, J.

The minor appeals the juvenile court's order denying her motion to compel respondent Contra Costa County Bureau of [820] Children and Family Services (Bureau) to pay for automobile liability insurance so that she may lawfully drive a car. She argues that federal and state law require that such payments be made to her foster parents. We disagree and affirm.

I.

Factual and Procedural

Background

Corrine W. was removed from her home at the age of 16 after she reported that her mother's boyfriend had been molesting the minor since she was 5 years old. Following a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] finding that the minor was a child described by subdivisions b (failure to protect) and d (sexual abuse) of the statute. The minor was eventually placed in foster care with a family friend, after having first been placed in a group home. Corrine's mother waived reunification services at the initial disposition hearing, and the juvenile court adopted the Bureau's recommendation that the minor be placed in long-term foster care. The minor's parents are not parties to this appeal, and no party challenges the juvenile court's orders with respect to the minor's status as a dependent of the court.

The minor filed a motion to compel support services on August 11, 2006. Specifically, she requested that the county pay for the cost of automobile liability insurance so that she could legally drive a car. (Veh.Code, §§ 16020, 16054 [all motor vehicle drivers must show proof of financial responsibility].) In its order denying the motion, the juvenile court cited section 202, subdivision (a), which provides that "it is the purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents." Reasoning that parents often cannot afford insurance or require their children to pay for their own insurance, the court reasoned that "the care and custody of a minor does not require funding of car insurance. Public funds are intended to provide the minor with the necessities. Driving an automobile at age sixteen is not a necessity." (Underlining original.) The minor timely appealed.[2] (§ 395 [orders after judgment may be appealed]; In re Daniel K. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 661, 666-667, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 764 [order entered at dispositional hearing is a final judgment].)