 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Nathaniel B.11/6/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In these consolidated appeals, Sharon B., maternal grandmother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her request for placement of the minor at both the dispositional hearing and the hearing to terminate parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, ยงยง 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].)
Appellant contends the juvenile court failed to fully evaluate her under the criteria of section 361.3 and abused its discretion in denying her request for placement. We reverse.
FACTS
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) removed the newborn minor from the mother in September 2001 when both tested positive for drugs. According to the detention report, several years earlier the mother had been arrested and had left the minor's three half-siblings with appellant and appellant's former husband. The mother told the social worker appellant accused her former husband of child abuse and took the children to the Children's Receiving Home because she could no longer care for them. There is no indication the social worker contacted appellant to confirm this statement prior to preparing the detention report. At the detention hearing, the court ordered DHHS to evaluate appellant's home for placement.
The jurisdictional/dispositional report filed November 14, 2001, did not contain an evaluation of appellant's home. The report stated only that appellant and her current husband had requested the minor be placed with them and that on September 28, 2001, appellant told the social worker she was in the process of completing the LiveScan application.
At the dispositional hearing on December 28, 2001, the court denied reunification services to the mother based upon her failure to rehabilitate from substance abuse. At the hearing, the mother said she wanted the minor placed with appellant. The mother's counsel informed the court that the social worker had said DHHS was not recommending placement with appellant. Counsel indicated that the social worker's reasons for denying placement appeared to be based upon erroneous information and asked if DHHS would continue to assess appellant for placement since the background check showed no criminal history. Appellant also attempted to clarify the facts but the court directed her to speak to the social worker to straighten out any misconceptions.
The assessment for the section 366.26 hearing was filed April 17, 2002. According to the assessment, the minor suffered from withdrawal symptoms for some time after birth. He now had "numerous colds, coughs, and ear infections requiring doctor visits, medication and special care" but was not considered unadoptable due to these medical conditions. The assessment stated appellant's home had been evaluated and a report prepared before the dispositional hearing, but was not included in the social worker's prior report to the court or even presented as an addendum. The adoptions worker attached the evaluation to the assessment.
Appellant's home evaluation stated the residence was a large two bedroom mobile home in which appellant, her 12-year-old daughter and her current husband resided. Appellant had child-proofed the home and planned to add an extra room to accommodate the minor if he was placed there.
The evaluation further stated both appellant and her husb
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|