In re Lexi G. CA2/7

Filed 11/16/15 In re Lexi G. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re LEXI G., a Person Coming Under the B263280 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK99222) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ASHLEY C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn K. Martinez, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Ashley C. appeals from the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights over her daughter Lexi G. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lexi G. came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services at birth in 2013 due to her mother’s drug use during pregnancy. Lexi G. tested positive for amphetamine in toxicology tests. DCFS detained Lexi G. and filed a petition alleging that she came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (j) [abuse of sibling].2 The juvenile court found Lexi G. to be a dependent child of the court, removed her from the custody of her parents, and placed her in the home of her maternal great-grandmother, Frances3 C. Lexi G.’s father G.G. was denied reunification services, and services for Ashley C. were terminated in 2014. The juvenile court set the hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan under section 366.26 for October 2014. On that date, the court continued the hearing due to a defect in notice to the parties. While in court, Ashley C.’s attorney advised the court that Ashley C. understood that Frances C. “believes that she has to choose adoption but she may also want information on legal guardianship.” Counsel requested that DCFS “just discuss both options with her.” The juvenile court inquired into DCFS’s discussions with Frances C. Frances C. said that DCFS told her that adoption was what the court would want and that it would be best for Lexi G. Frances C. told the court that DCFS said that if she did not adopt Lexi G., it would find another family member who would adopt her.