 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Nathaniel B.11/6/2002
previously showed in the half-siblings' case. The adoption worker concluded that placement of the minor with appellant and her husband was not indicated.
At the section 366.26 hearing, the court noted that the home evaluation had not been received in a timely fashion but that the addendum provided the necessary detail. The court recognized the relative placement preference existed but stated that even had the information been presented earlier, it still would not have placed the minor with appellant because both she and her husband had children whose children were removed and none were placed with them and because appellant did have custody of the half-siblings but gave them up and did not try to regain custody or visit them regularly. The court recognized there were no current abuse issues in appellant's home but was concerned about her history with the half-siblings and the fact that she removed the children from her prior home rather than separate from her former husband. The court concluded the information in the evaluation, done at the time of the dispositional hearing supported the decision to place the minor in foster care and, while the court was concerned about the timeliness, the information was unchanged over time.
Appellant tried to explain to the court that she was unable to take the siblings with her when she left her former husband because the minors were voluntarily placed with both her and her former husband by the mother. She believed that all she could do was to remove them to a place of safety when she left her former husband. Further, appellant stated she did visit the siblings when allowed to do so and had tried to have them returned to her but had little help in doing so.
The court informed appellant it would proceed with the section 366.26 hearing but that appellant could write a letter and meet with the Department to correct any errors in their reports. The court terminated parental rights and ordered the minor placed for adoption.
DISCUSSION
I.
Before dealing with the issues raised by appellant, we consider respondent's motion to dismiss appellant's appeal from the judgment of disposition which we previously deferred.
Respondent contends, with respect to the dispositional hearing, that there is no final order from which appellant may appeal because there was no order denying placement or continued evaluation entered at the dispositional hearing. Respondent further asserts as to both the appeal from the judgment of disposition and the appeal from the orders terminating parental rights that appellant is not a party to the dependency proceeding and therefore lacks standing to appeal.
We agree with respondent that the court did not make any specific findings or orders at the dispositional hearing granting or denying the relative placement under the preference. This occurred because the court lacked full information at that time and intended to further consider the matter when the additional information became available. However, a relative "placement decision" includes a decision to delay as well as to deny the placement. (Fam. Code, ยง 7950, subd. (c).) Since the court delayed the relative placement decision and entered a general placement order, appellant's challenge was not premature.
Of course, the juvenile court did make a determination of the appropriateness of the relative placement at the section 366.26 hearing and appellant timely appealed from that order. In the unique circumstances presented here, where DHHS not only acted unilaterally in determining whether the proposed relative placement was appropriate but also rendered a timely decision by the trial court imposs
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.
|
|