In re I.A. CA5

Filed 9/29/20 In re I.A. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F080836 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ300255-4) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION DAWN W.,

Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge. Dawn W., in pro. per., for Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.

In this dependency action, appellant Dawn W. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 petition to have her adoptive daughter’s minor half sister, I.A., placed with her. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 15, 2019, appellant filed a section 388 petition in the juvenile dependency matter regarding I.A. Appellant is the adoptive mother of I.A.’s half sibling, V.W. V.W. was born in November 2013. Appellant was a non-relative extended family member placement for V.W., and the adoption became final in March 2015. In March 2019, appellant learned that V.W.’s biological mother had given birth to I.A. in February 2019. In appellant’s section 388 petition, she requested the juvenile court to change its order placing I.A. with her current care provider and place I.A. in her home instead. Under the section in the petition for new information, appellant alleged she had requested placement of I.A. since she found about I.A.’s birth in March 2019 but was informed by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) that the current care provider was a blood relative. Appellant alleged the care provider was not related. Appellant alleged she and her husband had been licensed resource parents since December 2018. Appellant alleged the requested change of placement was in I.A.’s best interest because:

“It would be better for [I.A.] to have an opportunity for life-long support from her sisters and our family. The current caregiver is elderly and is likely to become unable to care for [I.A.] at some point during her childhood. We would be happy to remain in contact with her if the court wishes. We fear that [I.A.] will not have visits with [V.W.] once an adoption has been finalized due to caregivers past behavior. We can keep [I.A.] in contact with [I.A.’s older half siblings.]”