In re C.N. CA3

Filed 2/6/14 In re C.N. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re C.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C073541 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD216610) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeannie N., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court selecting a permanent plan of guardianship for the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

§§ 366.26, 395.) Mother contends only that the court unlawfully permitted the minor to refuse to visit mother. Disagreeing, we shall affirm. FACTS A full recitation of the history of the case is unnecessary. We previously detailed the circumstances which led to the minor’s first dependency with a successful reunification in 2003 and the subsequent issues that resulted in the filing of the current petition in July 2009 in a prior appeal in this case (case No. C063333 filed October 7, 2010). In the current proceeding, the juvenile court ultimately denied services for mother and placed the then 11-year-old minor in long-term foster care. Mother had monthly visits with the minor. At visits, mother made extravagant promises of gifts to the minor, actively manipulated him and disparaged his placement. By mid-2012, the minor decided to request guardianship and the juvenile court set a selection and implementation hearing. The minor wanted to speak to mother to help her understand his decision. However, at a visit in June 2012, mother was very negative about the minor’s decision. Mother’s reaction upset the minor because he wanted her to be supportive. By the end of the year, the social worker filed a petition to suspend both visitation and telephone contact because the minor did not want to have contact with mother. The petition alleged that, at a meeting in October 2012, the mother was not supportive of the minor’s decision to be in a guardianship with the current caretakers and displayed no empathy toward him. Further, on the minor’s birthday, mother called police and made a false report about the conditions in the foster home, causing police to investigate and interview the minor which resulted in emotional trauma to the minor. The minor’s therapist concluded that continued contact with mother was detrimental to the minor. The petition was later withdrawn. The report for the selection and implementation hearing recommended a permanent plan of guardianship for the minor. The report stated the minor was unwilling to attend the monthly visits with mother after October 2012. It recommended a post