In re Levi W. CA1/2

Filed 5/20/16 In re Levi W. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re LEVI W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146742 v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. L.S., No. J1300579) Defendant and Appellant.

This timely appeal by L.S. is from the order of September 11, 2015 by which the Contra Costa Juvenile Court terminated her parental rights as to minor Levi W.1 On that date, the court was considering the report of the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) concerning appellant’s four sons, of whom Levi is the

1 In her notice L.S. appeals from the “findings and orders of the court . . . [on] April 1, 2015 & September 11, 2015, terminating parental rights and setting [sic: selecting] adoption as the permanent plan.” Only the latter order is appealable. (In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 206.) The April 1, 2015 order scheduled the September 11 hearing for selection of a permanent plan in accordance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. That order is not appealable because appellant did not timely seek review by a petition for a extraordinary writ. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l).) In any event, appellant’s sole argument has nothing to do with the April order.

1

oldest. Levi and his brothers had been detained from appellant’s custody in May 2013. The court had conducted a 18-month review in November 2014. The Bureau caseworker noted that teenager2 Levi, who “exhibits great maturity,” “has the probability for adoption because his current caregiver is an identified prospective adoptive parent. Levi reports his desire to be adopted by his caregiver as well.”3 The caseworker summarized the Bureau’s recommendation to terminate parental rights only as to Levi, not his brothers: “Levi . . . . feels at home in his current home, has a strong bond with his prospective adoptive mother. He has repeatedly expressed a desire to stay in this house as an adopted child. At this time in Levi’s life, he is choosing permanency over the parental/child bond that he has with his biological parents. The undersigned as well as the foster family agency social worker have spoken many times to Levi about this matter and his desires have never wavered. He is clear that he would like to continue to have phone calls with his parents, occasional visits, but he feels that he is home. “The issue before the court today concerns the most appropriate permanent plan for the child. The child has no significant parent/child relationship which would outweigh the benefits of legal permanency for the child. Welfare and Institutions Code [section] 366.26 states that adoption should be the permanent plan if there is clear and convincing evidence that the child will be adopted. The child is an adoptable child, placed in an approved adoptive home. Therefore, Children and Family Services respectfully recommends that the Court terminate the parental rights of the mother . . . and make adoption the permanent plan for the child.”