In re I.A.
Filed 6/5/06 In re I.A. CA6
Opinion following transfer by Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re I.A., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H029072 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. DP000730, DP000731) |
| SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLAUDIA R., Defendant and Appellant. |
This dependency case returns to us following a grant of review and transfer by the California Supreme Court. The high court has directed us to vacate our prior opinion, in which we affirmed the termination of appellant's parental rights, and to entertain a stipulated reversal. We do so here.
BACKGROUND
This appeal involves two brothers, R.A. and I.A., who were born in January 1995 and October 1996, respectively. The children's mother is appellant Claudia R.; their alleged father, R.A., Sr., is not a party to this appeal.
These proceedings began in early November 2002, when appellant's children were removed from her custody by the Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency (Agency). The children were detained the same month. In January 2003, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents of the court, and they were placed together in a foster home. In August 2004, at the 18-month review hearing, the court accepted the parties' stipulation to terminate appellant's reunification services and it set the cases for hearing on the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for both of the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)
In a report prepared for the permanency planning hearing, the Agency recommended the termination of parental rights with a permanent plan of adoption for both children. The hearing was conducted as a contested matter, starting in January 2005. Appellant's counsel urged the court not to terminate her parental rights, arguing insufficient evidence that the children were adoptable and urging the existence of strong parent-child and sibling bonds. The Agency's attorney asserted that the children were adoptable. The children's counsel agreed with the Agency that the boys should be adopted. In discussing adoptability, counsel acknowledged that the two children â€
