In re Lilyanna N. CA2/3
Filed 5/12/16 In re Lilyanna N. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re LILYANNA N., A Person Coming B266780 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK76049) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EDGAR N.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra L. Losnick, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Jamie A Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________
INTRODUCTION Father Edgar N. appeals from the dependency court’s order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for his five-year-old daughter, Lilyanna N. Father argues the court erred by failing to apply the beneficial-relationship exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(1), to the statutory preference for adoption. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Initial Dependency Proceedings The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (department) first became aware of Lilyanna on May 31, 2012, when she was detained after a violent altercation between her mother Nicole R.2 and father. The court found jurisdiction over Lilyanna under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), due to the extensive history of domestic violence between mother and father during the course of their relationship, as well as mother’s reported mental health issues. The court placed Lilyanna in foster care and ordered family reunification services for both parents. In addition, the court ordered both parents to submit to random drug tests, counseling and parenting classes. On March 28, 2014, Lilyanna was released into the care of both parents, to reside primarily with mother, who was then residing in a sober living facility. On June 16, 2014, the department filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) containing additional allegations against mother and seeking to remove Lilyanna from mother and place her in father’s sole custody. The court released Lilyanna to father during the pendency of proceedings against mother on the supplemental petition.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)