In re W.T. CA3

Filed 6/29/23 In re W.T. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 W.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C096032 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD241504, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD241505)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.D. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellants E.T., P.T., and J.T.D-V are the half siblings of the subject minors, N.T. and W.T. (minors).1 They appeal from the partial denial of their Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 388, subdivision (b) petitions; the juvenile court granted their request to be

1 While we recognize the use of initials and shortened names may be difficult to read, it is necessary in this case to maintain the confidentiality of these proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.401(a).) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

recognized as siblings and to seek visitation but denied their request that the minors be placed with the T-B family—friends they consider to be their chosen family. The minors, through counsel, had argued in support of appellants’ requests and the T-B family had also filed section 388 petitions seeking placement of the minors, but neither the minors, nor the T-B family, appealed from the juvenile court’s placement orders. Finding appellants lack standing to contest the placement orders, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because none of the appellants are parties in this dependency case, we were provided a limited record in this appeal. (§ 827.) The underlying facts and procedure, however, are not necessary to our resolution of this appeal. The (twin) minors were detained at birth. The D-V family, who were nonrelative extended family members of mother, had adopted half sibling J.T.D-V and were then the legal guardians of half siblings E.T. and P.T., who they subsequently adopted during the course of these proceedings. The D-V family did not have the capacity to take the subject minors into their home, and the minors were placed in foster care. The D-V family reached out to their community of extended “chosen family” to look for a placement. The T-B family came forward and contacted the D-V family. Although the T-B family and the D-V family had had little contact with each other up to that time, they had many relationships in common. The T-B family contacted the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) to request that they be assessed for placement of the minors. The Department referred the T-B family for a resource family assessment (RFA). On September 23, 2021, approximately one month after the subject minors’ births, the D-V family filed section 388, subdivision (b) petitions on behalf of half siblings E.T. and P.T. (their then wards) “requesting to assert [E.T. and P.T.]’s relationship as siblings, related through birth mother, and establish rights for visitation.” The petition also requested the minors’ “placement plan consider [their] relationship with [their] siblings”