In re A.C. CA1/4

Filed 5/21/21 In re A.C. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, A160956

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. JD-029263-01) T.C., Objector and Appellant.

T.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her daughter, A.C. (minor), at a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother argues the juvenile court’s order violates due process because the court failed to find that returning the minor to mother’s care would be detrimental to the minor. We conclude mother has forfeited this argument by failing to raise it below. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order.

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

1

BACKGROUND The minor was born in May 2008. In January 2010, maternal grandmother Linda W. (guardian) obtained a probate guardianship over the minor.2 In January 2018, when the minor was nine years old and living with the guardian, the minor brought a bag of crack pipes to school that she had found at home. The minor reported that the guardian and other family members living with her abused drugs. The minor was then detained and the Alameda County Social Services Agency (agency) filed a dependency petition. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court appointed counsel for mother and found that continuing the minor in the home of the guardian or mother would be contrary to the minor’s welfare. At the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing in May 2018, the juvenile court removed the minor from the guardian’s custody, placed her in foster care, and ordered the agency to provide reunification services to the guardian. Mother had told the agency before the hearing that she did not want the guardian to care for the minor and opposed granting the guardian reunification services. Mother did not ask the agency for custody over the minor, and at the hearing, mother’s counsel did not request reunification services for mother or placement of the minor with her. Leading up to the six-month review hearing in November 2018, mother told the agency that she was unable to care for the minor and had concerns about the minor returning to the guardian’s care. At the hearing, mother’s counsel had not had contact with mother, so he did not ask for reunification