In re R.S. CA2/8

Filed 3/18/15 In re R.S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.S., a Person Coming Under the B257103 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK79963) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.B.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos E. Vazquez, Judge. Affirmed. Janice A. Jenkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

This appeal arises from an order of the juvenile court terminating jurisdiction over R.S., the child of appellant mother, and placing the child in a Kin-GAP1 legal guardianship with his paternal grandparents. At the April 2, 2014 hearing terminating dependency jurisdiction, the court ordered that mother was to have visitation with R.S. in any amount, with a minimum of two hours per month, and that the guardians would have discretion to liberalize or minimize the visitation schedule. Mother appeals, arguing the court’s order illegally vests the legal guardians with sole discretion over the visitation schedule. We affirm. FACTS Given the narrow issue on appeal, we briefly summarize the facts for context, focusing on those limited facts and procedural issues material to our discussion. R.S. is one of two children mother had with father (the other child is R.S.’s older brother). Father is not a party to this appeal. Mother also has at least one other minor child who is a younger half sibling to R.S. In November 2009, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) as to R.S. and his older brother. Reunification services were provided to mother, but ultimately proved unsuccessful and were terminated in January 2013. The Department recommended R.S. be adopted by his paternal grandparents who were his caregivers. The grandparents were interested in adoption. After a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, the court ordered legal guardianship as the permanent plan. R.S.’s paternal grandparents were appointed his legal guardians with Kin-GAP assistance. The court decided not to terminate parental rights due in part to evidence showing R.S.’s bond to his siblings. At the April 2, 2014 hearing, the court signed the guardianship papers and terminated dependency jurisdiction. As to visitation the court ordered that mother was