K.S. v. Superior Court CA2/6

Filed 7/27/16 K.S. v. Superior Court CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

2d Juv. No. B271265 K.S., (Super. Ct. No. J070478) (Ventura County) Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA,

Respondent;

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

K.S. (mother), appearing in propria persona, seeks review of the order made at the 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22)1 scheduling a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26 for her daughter, A.A. She contends the juvenile court should have bypassed the section 366.26 hearing and ordered a plan of long-term foster care. The court, however, lacked discretion to do so because there was evidence that A.A.’s current caregiver is willing to become the child’s legal guardian. (See § 366.22, subd. (a)(3).) We therefore deny mother’s petition for an extraordinary writ.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother came to the attention of the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services in May 2014, when she left two of her young children unattended. There also were allegations that mother was not providing adequate food for her five children, including six-year-old A.A. After the children were detained, two of them were placed with their respective fathers. A.A. and two other siblings, A.S. and R.M., were placed with their maternal great-aunt. The dependency case subsequently was transferred to Ventura County. Mother was provided with extensive family reunification services, with the goal of returning A.A., A.S. and R.M. to her care. At the 18-month review hearing, HSA recommended that family maintenance services be provided for R.M., and that long-term foster care be provided for A.S. and A.A., “with the mother receiving continued unsupervised visits, including overnight and weekend visits, and an extended visit with the children, . . . At the conclusion of the extended visit, it is the intention of [HSA] that a recommendation could be made for the mother to receive Family Maintenance Services with [A.S. and A.A.] at that time.” Mother agreed with the recommendation, but A.A.’s counsel requested that a section 366.26 hearing be set to determine a permanent plan for A.A. other than a return to mother’s care. A.A.’s maternal great-aunt, who remains her caregiver, testified at the contested hearing. She stated that she would be willing to become A.A.’s legal guardian. The juvenile court found that A.A. is not a proper subject for adoption but, based on the caregiver’s testimony, scheduled a section 366.26 hearing to assess, among other things, whether a legal guardianship should be established in lieu of long-term foster care. Mother challenges that decision. DISCUSSION Mother contends that scheduling a section 366.26 hearing was not in A.A.’s best interest because she is not adoptable and because there is no person seriously willing to assume legal guardianship. The record does not support this contention.