In re K.C. CA3
Filed 5/13/22 In re K.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
In re K.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C094953 Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD240451, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD240452, JD240453)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
C.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
1
Appellant C.C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and freeing the three minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to consider and apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. Finding the claim forfeited, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2020, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (g), and (j) for each of mother’s three children: Z.C. (born in April 2015), A.C. (born in September 2016), and K.C. (born in March 2018). The petitions alleged mother left the minors with an unrelated male who was found with the minors while unconscious due to the influence of prescription drugs, which were easily accessible to the minors. On February 24, 2020, the juvenile court ordered the minors detained with supervised visitation for mother. Initial Social Worker Reports The social worker asked Z.C. shortly after his detention whether he wanted to go back with his mother and he said, “I like it better here.” The social worker also interviewed Z.C. for the jurisdiction and disposition report. Z.C. said he felt safe in his current placement but he cried “about my mom and dad a lot.” When the social worker asked Z.C. “who he wants to live with, [Z.C.] excitedly reported, ‘I want to live with my mom and dad forever!’ Further, [Z.C.] reported he wishes to visit both his mother and his father. When asking [Z.C.] who the most important people in his life are, the child yelled with excitement, ‘my mom!’ ”
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)