In re A.F. CA1/3
Filed 1/12/23 In re A.F. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re A.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN and FAMILY A164387 SERVICES BUREAU, (Contra Costa County Plaintiff and Respondent, Sup. Ct. No. J19-00835) v. NA. S. et al., Appellants.
The alleged paternal aunts, Ny. S. and Na. S., of minor child A.F. appeal juvenile court orders denying their modification petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; undesignated references are to this code) — which sought A.F.’s placement with them — and denying their request to clarify that ruling.1 They argue the relative placement preference (§ 361.3) or, alternately, their status as nonrelative extended family members required the court to place
Appeals of an order terminating parental rights filed by mother 1
and alleged father were decided in In re A.F. (Sept. 15, 2022, A164101), a nonpublished opinion. 1
A.F. with them after she was removed from her mother, C.F. They further contend the court abused its discretion by summarily denying their request without an evidentiary hearing. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND2 A.F. was born in March 2012. Her alleged father is S.S. Alleged aunts,3 both of whom live in Florida, are S.S.’s sisters. In 2015, A.F. lived with Na. S. for approximately one year. At some point thereafter, A.F. was living with mother in Contra Costa County. In September 2019, Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) detained A.F. from mother — the events leading to the detention are unclear due to the limited record available on appeal. In October 2019, the Bureau notified alleged aunts that juvenile proceedings had been initiated for A.F. and she was currently in foster care. The Bureau sent them information regarding how to assist A.F., such as attending a child and family team meeting to make decisions about A.F., helping A.F. reunify with mother, providing information about additional family members, or having A.F. live with them. According to Na. S., a family
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)