San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services v. Shirley M.

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2005 No. No. E037988Published

Before: McKinster

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a de facto parent lacks standing to appeal a dependency court's order changing a child's physical placement because such status does not confer the legal rights of a parent or guardian.

Issues

Does a de facto parent have standing to appeal a dependency court's order changing a child's physical placement?
Does de facto parent status confer the right to custody or continued placement of a child?

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Finding that she is not aggrieved of the order, and therefore has no standing, we dismiss the appeal.”

“De facto parent status does not confer the rights of a parent or even a legal guardian.”

“Consequently, appellant has no legal standing to complain of the decision to place the child with the new prospective couple since she has no right to custody or continued placement as a mere de facto parent.”

[1359]Opinion

McKINSTER, Acting P. J. Shirley M. (hereafter appellant), formerly the foster mother of P.L. (hereafter the child), appeals from an order of the dependency court removing the child from her home and placing the child in a prospective adoptive home. Finding that she is not aggrieved of the order, and therefore has no standing, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child was bom in October 2003. Her mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The child was not tested for dmgs because the doctors were more interested in saving her life. The child had seizures and asphyxia, and stayed in neonatal intensive care for three weeks.

Mother only visited the child sporadically and spent her time “running the streets and using dmgs.” Mother could not be found when the child was ready for discharge from the hospital. The child was placed with appellant, who was a foster mother of four other children who were siblings ranging in ages three to 17.

On November 6, 2003, a petition was filed on behalf of the child alleging that she came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26, subdivisions (b) and (g).1

A jurisdiction hearing was held on April 20, 2004. Mother was not present. The court found the petition trae and declared the child to be a dependent of the court. Custody was removed from mother, and the child was placed “. . . in the care, custody, [and] control of the director of [the Department of Children’s Services (hereafter DCS)].” The social worker was authorized to place the child in a concurrent planning home by informational packet.

On November 15, 2004, the court held a six-month review hearing. The court terminated reunification services and set the case for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) It was recommended that the child be freed for adoption.

DCS began the adoption assessment process for the child in anticipation of the selection and implementation hearing. Appellant had expressed some interest in adopting the child so DCS conducted an interview with her. Appellant expressed concern that her health might prevent her from being an [1360]

San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services v. Shirley M.

AI Brief

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief