In re C.R. CA2/6

Filed 11/6/13 In re C.R. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re C.R. & M.A., Persons Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B247705 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J1395601, J1395602) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.W. appeals from two orders denying her motions to replace assigned counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2011, A.W.'s two children were removed due to neglect. A.W. did not comply with a court ordered family reunification plan and the juvenile court terminated her services. We dismissed her appeal from that order as abandoned. (Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services v. A.W., case No.

B242340.) The juvenile court ordered no further visitation pending a hearing to terminate parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 We affirmed that order on appeal. (Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services v. A.W., May 13, 2013, Case No. B245355 [nonpub. opn.].) We granted A.W.'s request to incorporate by reference the records on appeal in case numbers B245355 and B242340. We incorporate here our recitation of the facts from our opinion in case number B245355. At the 366.26 hearing initially set for February 7, 2013, A.W. asked the juvenile court to replace her assigned counsel. The court conducted a closed hearing and denied the request. It did not advise her on the record of her right to appeal. A.W. asked the juvenile court to continue the 366.26 hearing to allow her to retain private counsel. The court granted the request. It ordered her to submit a written offer of proof by March 7, 2013. A.W. did not retain private counsel. On March 14, 2013, A.W. appeared with assigned counsel. He had not filed a written offer of proof on her behalf. He said that he and A.W. had met and he had advised her that they could "not satisfy the visitation prong, both for an offer of proof and for a J.V. 180." A.W. again asked the court to replace her counsel. The juvenile court conducted a closed hearing and denied A.W.'s request. The juvenile court proceeded with the 366.26 hearing. A.W.'s counsel did not present any evidence, but asked the court to continue the matter because A.W.'s appeal from the order terminating visitation was still pending. The court denied the request. A.W. read into the record a letter from a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) regarding shortcomings with her reunification plan. The NAACP recommended