In re R.J.
Filed 6/23/08 In re R.J. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re R.J., et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
A118887
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(ContraCostaCounty
v. Super. Ct. Nos.
J03-00194, J03-00196)
L.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
________________________________________/
L.H. appeals from orders that appoint a de facto parent for her children R.and Adrian. We conclude appellant lacks standing to challenge the orders and dismiss the appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We need not provide a detailed history of this case given the nature of the issue that has been raised. It should suffice to say that in February 2003, petitions were filed alleging that appellants daughter R., then seven, and her son Adrian, then three-months, were dependent children within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. R.s petition alleged that Adrians father beat her with a belt, and that appellant also used excessive corporal punishment against the girl. The petition concerning Adrian alleged he was at risk for similar harm.
The petitions were sustained and the children were removed from appellants custody. Appellant was offered reunification services.
In the years that followed, R. and Adrian were placed in several temporary homes. Finally, in July 2006, both children were placed with Ms. W. who operated a licensed foster home in Martinez.
Ms. W. provided the children with excellent care and R. in particular appeared to benefit. Ms. W. had four children of her own and she operated a day care center from her home. A social worker described Ms. W as a five star general with a soft heart. R. wanted to live with Ms. W. and Ms. W. was willing to adopt R. and Adrian.
At a status hearing on June 4, 2007, counsel for the children asked that Ms. W. be granted de facto parent status. Counsel for mother objected noting that she had not received prior notice of the de facto parent request. The court agreed it was not appropriate to grant de facto parent status without prior notice. Telling appellant you have notice today the court set a hearing in two weeks to consider the de facto parent request. The court said Ms. W. could use that time to complete the required judicial council forms.
The continued de facto parent request was heard two weeks later on June 26, 2007. Unfortunately, counsel for the children, who had been told to complete the judicial council forms, failed to do so. Counsel for the children provided an oral presentation instead, telling the court Ms. W. was bonded to the children and that she was interested in adopting them. Counsel for the children also noted that Adrian was experiencing some psychological problems and that it would be in his best interest if Ms. W. could attend court hearings and receive the appropriate reports.
Counsel for appellant objected to the oral presentation arguing it was not an adequate substitute for the required judicial council forms. The court disagreed, I think were having form over substance in this. [] They were told last time it was set for de facto parent status. Everybody is very familiar with Ms. [W.] the contact with the family, the length of time shes had with these children on two separate occasions. [] I think this is really going to be a lot of extra paperwork. Theres nothing new to come out that wasnt said at the last hearing about Ms. [W.s] qualifications and reasons. [] . . . I have had this case for a long time. I see absolutely no reason not to grant her de facto parent status. [] So I am granting Ms. [W.] de facto parent status, and I am asking you to get the papers in the judicial [council] forms within this week.
Subsequently, counsel for the minors filed one of the two forms that normally are filed when seeking de facto parent status, and the court signed the standard judicial council form orders.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court erred when it granted de facto parent status to Ms. W. She claims counsels failure to complete and file the mandatory judicial council forms prior to the June 26, 2007 hearing resulted in a violation of her due process right to notice.
We need not address this issue because appellant lacks standing to raise it.
[A] parent cannot raise issues on appeal from a dependency matter that do not affect her own rights. [Citation.] (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703.) Applying this principle, several cases have held that a parent in a dependency appeal cannot challenge a courts de facto parent ruling. The premise for these cases is that a person granted de facto parent status gains only limited rights.[1] Given the limited nature of those rights, a parent is not materially affected by a courts de facto parent ruling. Therefore, a parent lacks standing to challenge the courts de facto parent ruling on appeal. For example, in In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823, the mother, Stacy, appealed from an order terminating her parental rights. One of the issues the mother tried to assert on appeal was that the juvenile court erred when it declined to grant de facto
parent status to her mother, the childs grandmother. [Citation.] The court declined to address the issue stating: Stacy lacks standing to raise those issues because her interests are not prejudiced by the denial of de facto status to the grandmother. [Citation.] (Id. at p. 1835.) The court in In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, reached the same conclusion. There, a father challenged the courts decision to deny de facto parent status to his mother and sisters. The court stated: An appellant must show prejudicial error affecting his or her interest in order to prevail on appeal. [Citation.] An appellant cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal. [Citation.] [] Here, [fathers] interest in the dependency proceeding is to reunify with his dependent child. A de facto parents nexus with the proceeding is that persons separate interest and relationship with the child, which may have developed over time through the daily care, affection and concern for the child. [Citation.] The de facto parents interest is not, as [father] suggests, in acting as an advocate to preserve the natural parents bond with the child. The fact his relatives have not been accorded de facto parent status does not preclude [father] from presenting any evidence about [the minors] best interests or his relationship with her. Because [father] is not aggrieved by the order, he may not challenge it on appeal. (Id. at p. 261.)
We reach a similar conclusion here. Appellant undoubtedly has an interest in preserving her relationship with her children. However, that interest was not affected by the courts decision to grant limited de facto parent status to Ms. W. Appellant lacks standing to challenge an order that does not affect her rights materially.
Appellant does not discuss or attempt to distinguish any of the cases we have cited. Instead, she cites cases that stand for the proposition that parties of record may appeal. (See, e.g., In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 759.) While that may be true, even a party who has standing generally may not raise an issue on appeal that does not affect her substantial rights. (In re Daniel D., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1835-1836.) That is the case here.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Reardon, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] A person granted de facto parent status gains only the right to be present at the dependency hearing, to be represented by counsel, and to present evidence. (In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 191.)
