In re D.R. CA2/8

Filed 6/20/13 In re D.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re D.R., a Person Coming Under the B245103 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 07610)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Elizabeth Kim, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________________

SUMMARY The mother in this juvenile dependency proceeding is incarcerated in state prison until at least 2025. She seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s order limiting her right to make educational decisions for her child, D.R. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the order. FACTS Mother T.T. was incarcerated in 2009. Her two children, D.R. (eight years old) and B.C. (17 years old) came to the attention of the juvenile court in December 2011. In February 2012, the juvenile court sustained allegations that mother “is incarcerated and is unable to make an appropriate plan for the children’s ongoing care and supervision,” thus endangering the children’s physical health and safety and creating a detrimental home environment. No reunification services were ordered. The court found the children were not proper subjects for adoption and had no one willing to accept legal guardianship. The court ordered a permanent plan of “placement with a relative, with a specific goal of independent living with identification of a caring adult to serve as a lifelong connection for the youth . . . .” This appeal relates only to D.R., who wanted to live with his adult sibling, Lorenzo C., but Lorenzo did not qualify to have D.R. placed with him. D.R. thus went through a number of placements that were unsuccessful for one reason or another, and during which he exhibited serious behavioral problems and, at times, refused to attend school. D.R. told the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services he felt “sad that he was repeatedly replaced and did not want to adjust to placement fearing he would have to [be] replaced again.” When asked for “reasons he refuses to attend school or do well in placement,” he said “there was no point to him behaving as he would eventually be replaced.” The record of D.R.’s numerous placements, his serious behavioral problems, and his schooling is as follows.