In re Eliza T. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 2022 No. B315940Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that the appellant forfeited her claim regarding a pending section 388 petition by failing to raise it at the hearing. Furthermore, any error in failing to rule on the petition was harmless because the petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by denying a request for a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing?
Did the appellant forfeit her challenge to the termination of parental rights by failing to raise the existence of a pending section 388 petition at the hearing?
Was the failure to rule on the section 388 petition prejudicial error?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court found no good cause to further delay the selection and implementation hearing based solely on speculation that Tamisha might be interested in placement”

“the failure to raise the issue at the hearing when any oversight could have easily been cured presents a classic case for application of the forfeiture doctrine.”

Filed 7/19/22 In re Eliza T. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

In re ELIZA T., a Person Coming B315940 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05019A LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

TREASURE M.,

Defendant and Appellant

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed. Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ Treasure T., the mother of now-three-year-old Eliza T., appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. Treasure contends the court erred in denying her request for a continuance of the selection and implementation hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 and terminating parental rights without ruling on Treasure’s pending section 388 petition seeking reinstatement of family reunification services. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Sustained Section 300 Petition and Disposition On January 9, 2020 the juvenile court sustained a section 300 petition finding Treasure suffered from mental and emotional problems including diagnosed bipolar disorder with other persistent mood disorder and major depressive disorder, failed to take her prescribed psychotropic medication or participate in mental health services, abused marijuana and was under the influence of marijuana while caring for Eliza, all of which placed Eliza at substantial risk of serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)). At the disposition hearing immediately following adjudication, the court declared Eliza a dependent child of the court, removed her from parental custody and placed her under the care and supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for suitable

In re Eliza T. CA2/7

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TREASURE M.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

AI Brief