In re H.T. CA3

Filed 12/9/20 In re H.T. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re H.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C091624 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239985) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.T.,

Defendant and Appellant;

H.T., Appellant.

Father appeals from the juvenile court’s placement orders entered after a relative placement hearing; the minor H.T. joins in the briefing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.3, 395.)1 Their sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court abused its discretion in

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

denying placement of the minor with the paternal cousins and continuing placement in her current foster home with her sibling. Disagreeing, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We include only the facts relevant to the disputed placement order. The two-day-old minor was taken into protective custody in July 2019, and placed in the confidential foster home where her sibling N.D. lived. Prior to the August 2, 2019 detention hearing, the parents identified possible relative placements for consideration that included the minor’s paternal second cousins, B.T. and W.J. The cousins did not clear emergency placement requirements due to prior child welfare allegations. The minor was ordered detained and remained placed in the foster home with her sibling. The Department’s August 2019 jurisdiction/disposition report noted the minor was doing well in her placement and that the minor’s current caregivers were in the process of adopting N.D. and were willing to provide permanency for the minor as well. The cousins also expressed an interest in placement of the minor. In its October 2019 addendum report, the Department again reported that the minor was doing very well in her placement. The minor’s caregivers had adopted N.D. and continued to be willing to adopt the minor. The parents requested the Department assess the cousins and supported placement with them. The Department submitted a section 361.3 assessment regarding the cousins. The cousins had been referred to a Resource Family Approval (RFA) orientation on August 9, 2019, and the assessment was pending. The cousins had lived at their address for the past 10 years, been married for 23 years, and were retired and able to care for the minor during the day. Additionally, they had fostered other children and were aware of the medical issues associated with children (such as the minor) exposed to controlled substances in utero. The cousins also indicated they had a good relationship with their family and additional support. The cousins did not have placement of any of the minor’s siblings. The Department noted no concerns about the cousins’ ability to meet the minor’s needs and they were willing to follow court