In Re MR

33 Cal.Rptr.3d 629 (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 269 In re M.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.V., Defendant and Appellant.

No. E037337. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two.

August 29, 2005. Nicole A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, Dawn M. Messer and Michael A. Markel, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Richard Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors M.R. and J.R.

[630] Sharon M. Jones, Ventura, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors G.R. and P.R.

Certified for Partial Publication.[*]

OPINION

McKINSTER, J.

G.V., (hereafter mother) appeals from the trial court's order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition and from the subsequent orders terminating her parental rights to her two younger daughters, M.R. (M.) and J.R. (J.), and establishing guardianships for her two older children, P.R. (P.) and G.R. (G.). With respect to the order denying her section 388 petition, mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion. In challenging the termination of parental rights, mother contends that she demonstrated that the exceptions apply under section 366.26, subdivisions (c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(E), for a beneficial relationship and sibling relationship, respectively. Mother also contends that G. was denied effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court improperly delegated visitation with P. and G. to the legal guardians.

In the published portion of this opinion we hold that the trial court improperly delegated to the legal guardian the power to decide whether mother would be allowed to visit her two older children, P. and G. Therefore, we will reverse that order and will direct the trial court, on remand, to make a new visitation order that specifies both the frequency and duration of mother's visits. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we hold that mother met her burden of demonstrating that the beneficial relationship exception to parental rights termination applies in this case. Therefore, we will reverse the judgment terminating mother's parental rights to J. and M. and will remand the matter to the trial court for a new section 366.26 hearing.