In re T.M. CA4/1

Filed 9/13/21 In re T.M. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078916 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ3734A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Reversed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and J. Jeffrey Bitticks, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

G.M. (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for her daughter, T.M. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights after finding that T.M. was likely to be adopted. Rather than filing a respondent’s brief, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a motion to augment the record with new evidence that T.M.’s prospective adoptive family is no longer interested in adoption and that T.M., who is now over the age of 12, no longer wants to be adopted. The Agency concedes that based on this new evidence, a permanent plan of adoption is no longer appropriate and that the juvenile court’s order should be reversed. For reasons we shall explain, we conclude that this situation falls within a narrow exception to the general rule precluding an appellate court’s consideration of new evidence not considered by the juvenile court. Under this exception, we may rely on this new evidence and the parties’ agreement that the juvenile court’s findings should be reversed. Accordingly, we will grant the motion to augment, reverse the juvenile court’s order, and remand for a new selection and implementation hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, the Agency petitioned the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare