In re N.C. CA1/3

Filed 6/24/14 In re N.C. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re N.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140027 v. (Del Notre County J.B., Super. Ct. Nos. JVSQ13-6017, Defendant and Appellant. JVSQ13-6018)

J.B. (Mother), mother of N.C. and M.C. (the Twins), born in January 2007, appeals from orders at the six-month review in the Twins’ dependency cases, which continued the Twins in the custody of their father, D.C. (Father), and granted in part and denied in part Mother’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to change the court’s dispositional orders. We recently decided Mother’s appeal from the dispositional orders. (In re N.C. (A138503, May 6, 2014) (nonpub. opn.).) As stated in our prior opinion: “The Twins are subjects of a custody dispute in marital dissolution proceedings between Mother and Father. Mother accuses Father of sexually molesting the Twins, and at one point she absconded with them. The court determined in these dependencies that the Twins would

1

be safe with Father pending further investigation into the family’s circumstances and the allegations against him.” (Id. at p. 1.) The length of Mother’s latest briefs notwithstanding, there were no particularly significant developments between the dispositional hearing and the six-month review. Most notably, the court had not yet received the custody assessment from Dr. Jacqueline Singer, which, as noted in our last opinion, was to be the basis for detailed planning in the cases. The record does not substantiate Mother’s current claims of error, so we affirm the orders issued at the six-month review. I. BACKGROUND At the conclusion of the April 12, 2013 dispositional hearing, county counsel advised the court that Mother had filed a lawsuit in federal court “against just about everyone involved in this case.” The court set a hearing for May 10 to consider the county’s request to release transcripts of hearings in the Twins’ cases to defense counsel in the federal action. At the May 10 hearing, the county withdrew it request to disclose the transcripts, and the court granted a request by the Twins’ counsel to retain psychologist Michael Ramirez to assist with the Twins’ representation. An interim review hearing was held in this case on June 28. The Department’s report for the hearing recommended continued family maintenance services to Father and reunification services to Mother. The report stated that Mother “still brings in too many ‘things’ (i.e., snacks, toys dress up clothes, activities) for the children during visits.” Mother also made comments during the visits the Department considered inappropriate, such as saying on April 8, “Hopefully my attorney will be able to help Mom get you back soon so you can come home.” On May 9, Mother told the twins they could tell her if they had secrets, and N.C. asked “Even if they are lies?” Mother answered: “Yes, even if they are lies daddy is telling you about mommy.” On June 3, Mother asked M.C., “Do you have something to say? Will you tell me? Will you tell [the visitation supervisor]? Can I ask what you are scared of telling me or I mean in front of someone else? Is it because you only trust me?”