Samantha S. v. Super. Ct. CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 2014 No. F068463Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the removal of the children from the petitioner's custody, as the evidence supported the finding that removal was in the children's best interests due to the petitioner's failure to protect them from contact with their biological mother. The court further held that the petitioner was not denied due process regarding the timing of the removal hearing or access to the case file.

Issues

Did the juvenile court violate the petitioner's due process rights by failing to set the removal hearing within the statutory timeframe?
Was the petitioner denied due process by being denied access to the juvenile case file?
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in finding that removal of the children from the petitioner's custody was in their best interests?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court has the authority and responsibility to determine whether removal from the home of a prospective adoptive parent is in the child’s best interests.”

“we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s determination that it was in J.C. and R.M.’s best interests to remove them from Samantha’s home.”

Filed 2/27/14 Samantha S. v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SAMANTHA S., Petitioner, F068463 v. (Super. Ct. Nos. JJV066587A & THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE JJV066587B) COUNTY,

Respondent; OPINION

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Hugo J. Loza, Commissioner. Jean Bourn, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and John A. Rozum and Amy-Marie Costa, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Detjen, J.

Samantha S. is the former prospective adoptive mother of six-year-old J.C. and two-year-old R.M. whom respondent Tulare County Superior Court freed for adoption (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c))1 in 2013. In September 2013, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) removed the children from Samantha’s custody after discovering Samantha allowed the children’s biological mother, Sarah, to live with them. Samantha objected to the children’s removal and requested the superior court’s review. The superior court acting as the juvenile court found it in the children’s best interests to remove them from Samantha’s custody and so ordered. Samantha seeks writ review (§ 366.28) of the juvenile court’s decision. She contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights and erred in removing the children from her custody. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In November 2012, the Riverside County Juvenile Court sustained allegations that Sarah’s drug abuse, transient lifestyle, domestic violence and untreated mental illness placed then four-year-old J.C. and one-year-old R.M. at a substantial risk of harm. The juvenile court also sustained allegations that J.C. and R.M.’s fathers failed to provide care or support for them, ordered family reunification services for Sarah and R.M.’s father and transferred the case to Tulare County, Sarah’s county of residence. In December 2012, the agency placed the children with Samantha who was romantically involved with Sarah and lived with her and the children for approximately a year. During that time, Samantha assumed a parental role for the children and they looked to her to meet their emotional and physical needs. Samantha reportedly broke off her relationship with Sarah when the children were placed with her.

Samantha S. v. Super. Ct. CA5

AI Brief

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief