In re D.L. CA4/3

Filed 1/31/24 In re D.L. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G062708 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15DP0058) v. OPINION C.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig E. Arthur, Judge. Affirmed. C.T., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.

Mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court transferring educational rights over minor to another person. Minor, who is currently in the 8th grade, and who suffers from autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is severely behind his grade level in learning. Everyone supporting minor—the social worker, his school, the court appointed special advocate (CASA) representative, his counsel—all urged mother to put minor on an independent educational program (IEP). His mother resisted, then agreed, then failed to sign the necessary paperwork. After a six-month process of reassurances from mother that she would do it, she eventually refused, and the court granted Orange County Social Services Agency’s (SSA) motion to transfer educational rights from mother to a CASA representative. Mother appealed. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Mother’s arguments on appeal are twofold. First, she contends there was false information associated with the IEP application, but she never explains what that falsehood was, nor does she cite anything in the record to support her claim. Second, she contends that minor’s 504 plan was an 1 adequate substitute. However, as we explain in detail below, there is ample authority and evidence to support the court’s contrary conclusion.