In re G.S. CA5

Filed 11/19/15 In re G.S. CA5 Received for posting on 12/10/15

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re G.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F071580 SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. MJP016939)

Petitioner and Respondent, OPINION v.

V.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. Gregory Chappel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance made for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant V.K. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her three-year-old son, G.S., at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.1 Mother’s court-appointed counsel filed a letter brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.), informing this court that he read the entire record and could find no issues to raise on appeal. We granted mother leave to file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. Mother submitted a letter asking this court to reopen G.S.’s case so that she and her husband, G.S.’s father (hereafter “father”), could attempt to regain custody of him. Mother and father are residents of India. In January 2012, they were in the United States on a temporary visa when mother gave birth to G.S. in Madera County. G.S. was born with congenital heart disease that was diagnosed prenatally. Initially, the doctors planned to perform three surgeries to repair the defect, anticipating that after the second surgery G.S. would be stable enough to return to India with his parents. However, after the first surgery, the cardiologist determined that further surgery would not correct the problem and that G.S. needed a heart transplant. Meanwhile, mother and father left for India in March 2012, before the first surgery. The medical staff attempted to convey to mother and father that G.S.’s only chance of survival was a heart transplant but that they had to return for at least three months for an assessment of the family in order to put G.S. on the heart transplant list. Despite many conversations with the medical staff and social workers and promises that they would return, mother and father did not return. Ultimately, the doctors determined G.S. was not a transplant candidate and his condition was inoperable. He was transferred to a sub-acute home for palliative care.