In re L.N. CA2/8

Filed 11/14/14 In re L.N. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re L.N. et al., Persons Coming Under the B254138 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK31209) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LISA H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rudolph Diaz, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Melinda A. Green, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Mother Lisa H. appeals from the orders issued at the permanency planning hearing, held January 24, 2014, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother did not object below, and does not argue here, that the juvenile court erred in ordering guardianship as the permanent plan, with maternal great-aunt as the legal guardian of her two minor daughters, nor does she challenge the juvenile court’s termination of dependency jurisdiction. Mother only argues the court erred in refusing to award her transportation assistance to effectuate that portion of the court’s order that maintained her right to visitation. We find no merit in mother’s contention and therefore affirm. BACKGROUND Because mother has not raised a substantial evidence question for review, we briefly summarize only those facts and procedural issues material to our discussion, as well as some additional facts for context. In December 2011, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) regarding mother’s two minor daughters. The girls were detained and placed in foster care. Mother had a lengthy history with the Department and previously failed to reunify with three of her other children. In early 2012, both girls were placed with maternal great-aunt, and thereafter were regularly reported by the social worker to be doing extremely well in their placement. Mother was granted monitored visitation, with the Department given discretion to liberalize. Mother did not comply with her case plan. Mother was generally consistent in visiting, but the visits did not always go well. Reunification services were terminated on March 6, 2013. The section 366.26 hearing was originally scheduled for July 3, 2013. Maternal great-aunt was willing to become a permanent legal guardian, but told the Department