Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Nerissa H.

Opinion

EPSTEIN, Acting P. J. Nerissa H. (Mother) and Earl L., Sr., (Father; collectively Parents) appeal from the order terminating their parental rights over Earl L. and Earllia L., which freed them for adoption.

Parents contend the juvenile court violated their rights to due process (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) by requiring them to make an offer of proof before setting a contested hearing to determine whether the sibling exception (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E))1 applied. They also contend that setting Earl L. and Earllia L. free for adoption would be detrimental in light of their strong bond with two older half siblings, Jamesha T. and Jesse T.

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order. In particular, we conclude that the offer of proof procedure set forth in our earlier decision of In re Tamika T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1114 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 873] applies to the sibling exception to termination of parental rights.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Mother has five children. In descending order of age, they are Unesha L.; Jamesha T.; Jesse T.; Earl L.; and Earllia L. Jamesha T. and Jesse T. share the same father. Earl L. and Earllia L. also share the same father.

[1052]The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition (§ 300) to detain Unesha L., Jamesha T., Jesse T, and Earl L.

On February 15, 2002, the juvenile court sustained a second amended petition and declared the children to be dependents.

A separate petition (§ 300) was filed by DCFS on behalf of Earllia L., who was bom in early June 2002. The juvenile court sustained the petition, as amended, and declared her to be a dependent.

On September 18, 2002, Earllia L. was placed in the foster home of Betty G. Earl L., Jamesha T., and Jesse T, were already there. Unesha L. had been placed in another foster home.

At the May 9, 2003, hearing, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a permanency plan hearing (§ 366.26). The court found Mother was not in compliance with the case plan and Father’s compliance was only partial.