In re Natalie T. CA2/4

Filed 8/29/14 In re Natalie T. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re Natalie T., a Person Coming Under the B252926 Juvenile Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT Super. Ct. No. CK90631) OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

N.T.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tony L. Richardson, Judge. Reversed and remanded. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________________

In this dependency action (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300),1 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services appeals from section 366.26 orders that identified legal guardianship or foster care as the child’s permanent plan. The appeal challenges the application of the parent-child relationship exception—also called the “benefit exception”—to termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The Department contends the trial court erred in finding the exception applies to this case. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the finding was premature, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND Natalie T. was born in 2005 to Erika B. (Mother), who is not a party to this appeal, and respondent N.T. (Father). When Natalie came to the Department’s attention in March 2010, she was riding with Mother in a stolen car that was driven by Mother’s boyfriend, who crashed the car during a police pursuit. It is undisputed that Mother, who failed to secure Natalie in a seatbelt or child safety seat, had endangered Natalie. Mother was arrested and Natalie was released to Father’s custody.2 The record contains almost no information concerning Natalie’s relationship with Father prior to Mother’s arrest. We infer, however, that Mother was the primary custodial parent based on the fact that Father, who lived apart from Mother in another city, took several weeks to enroll Natalie in school following Mother’s arrest. One month after Natalie was released to his custody, Father tested positive for drugs and entered an agreement with the Department to receive family reunification services. Natalie was placed with relatives while Father participated in a substance abuse