In re E.P. CA1/5

Filed 2/14/14 In re E.P. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

In re E.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL A137735 SERVICES AGENCY, (Alameda County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. OJ1101661101) v.

K. P.,

Objector and Appellant. _____________________________________/

K.P. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights as to E.P. (daughter) following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing).1 Mother contends the court’s delayed appointment of a guardian ad litem for her “is reversible error.” We disagree and affirm.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Father is not a party to the appeal and is mentioned only where relevant to the issues raised in mother’s appeal. (In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 966, fn. 2, superseded on other grounds as stated in In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 57–58.) 1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition Mother was incarcerated, awaiting trial on burglary charges, when daughter was born in March 2011. A few days later, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 petition alleging, among other things, that mother’s mental health issues “periodically interfere[d] with her ability to care for and provide for” daughter and that father’s whereabouts were unknown. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) Specifically, the petition alleged: (1) mother “is diagnosed with schizophrenia and refuses to take medication for this illness,” “does not believe that she has a mental health issue,” and “has been hospitalized” at a psychiatric facility “six times”; and (2) “mother exhibits volatile behaviors and . . . is experiencing delusions,” is “hearing voices,” is “disheveled in appearance, will not shower for months, and believes people are following her.” The Agency amended the petition to add an allegation that mother was incarcerated and unable to care for daughter. (§ 300, subd. (g).) Following a detention hearing, the court detained daughter and placed her with daughter’s maternal aunt (aunt). In its jurisdiction/disposition report, the Agency noted mother has schizophrenia and had “been off her medications since late 2009. [She] has a history of poor impulse control, violent altercations with family members, and poor judgment. [M]other has been homeless for at least four years” and “does not exhibit the ability to provide care” for daughter. Mother appeared at the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in May 2011 and denied having a mental issue that interfered with her ability to care for daughter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court noted mother was deluded “as to the nature and extent of her mental health issues.” The court explained that mother seemed to be “alert and coherent” and “very intelligent” and “likeable” but that her animated gestures were “concerning.” According to the court, until mother took “care of [her] serious mental health issues,” daughter was “at risk.” Following the hearing, the court declared daughter a dependent of the court, ordered reunification services, and directed the Agency to arrange supervised visitation.