In re D v. CA3

Filed 3/26/21 In re D.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

In re D. V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C091368 Court Law.

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. 19DP00120) EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N. S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N. S., the minor’s former foster parent, appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her petition for de facto parent status. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The minor was born in May 2019 and placed with N. S. as a foster child. While the minor was in the hospital, N. S. visited the nursery to hold and interact with her. The

1

minor was released to go home with N. S. and stayed at N. S.’s home for approximately five months. The minor was then placed with a prospective adoptive family. N. S. filed a statement with the court protesting the minor’s removal. In the statement, N. S. explained that removing the minor was harmful both to the minor and to N. S.’s older daughter, because the three of them had been a family for five months at that point. N. S. explained the girls got along well and that N. S. was qualified to adopt the minor. N. S. discussed conversations she had with the Hmong Cultural Center and other Hmong acquaintances to prepare herself to help the minor understand the minor’s Hmong heritage. N. S. also detailed her daily activities, including holding and singing to the minor, and playing games with her older daughter and the minor to make the minor laugh. N. S.’s older daughter cried after dropping the minor off with the prospective parents, and N. S. “wanted to cry but . . . couldn’t for [the older daughter’s] sake.” N. S. then filed a request for prospective adoptive parent designation. In the request, N. S. wrote she had first asked to be designated as the minor’s permanent placement when the minor had been released from the hospital. She made the request again at a family meeting the next month. In September 2019, Lynette Dornon, an adoption social worker, interviewed N. S. at home. Dornon expressed concern about N. S.’s ability to help the minor learn about the minor’s Hmong heritage and the possibility that the minor would have to compete with N. S.’s older daughter, who had special needs, for attention. N. S. was ultimately told a different family had been chosen. In November 2019, N. S. filed a request to be designated a de facto parent. N. S. explained the minor had lived with her for approximately five months, she had not attended any of the minor’s court hearings, and had not sent any written reports to the court about the minor. She described her daily activities with the minor, including taking the minor for walks outdoors in her baby carrier. She left blank the section on the request asking for any unique information she possessed about the minor.