In re R.P.
Filed 5/24/06 In re R.P. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| In re R. P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELISSA R., Defendant and Appellant. | A111158 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C-190096) |
Elissa R. (Mother) appeals after the juvenile court granted de facto parent status to the foster parents who were caring for her son, R. P., and his brother, R. W. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mother has two children, R. W. and R. P. The Alameda County Services Agency (the agency) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300 on July 2, 2004, alleging there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious harm.[2] According to the petition, police had been called by neighbors who had seen then two-year-old R. W. running down the street unattended on June 28, 2004. Mother was found to be under the influence of methamphetamines, and drug-related paraphernalia was found in her home. R. P. was one month old at the time. The children were detained and placed in foster care. By September 17, 2004, the children had been placed in the home of their current foster parents. According to the foster family agency, they were excellent fost/adopt parents, provided a safe, stable, and nurturing environment, and wished to adopt the two boys if reunification efforts failed.
A status review report for the 12-month hearing scheduled for June 2005 recommended that the children remain in their current placement, that reunification services be terminated for Mother, and that a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 be scheduled with the permanent plan of adoption. The children remained with the foster parents and had a strong attachment to them. The foster parents were willing to adopt the children.
The foster parents filed a request to be treated as de facto parents of the two boys on June 20, 2005. At a June 28, 2005, hearing in front of Commissioner Paul Seeman, Mother was present, and was represented by counsel. The foster parents were also present. Mother opposed the de facto parent request, contending the request did not have a proof of service attached and had not been served in a timely manner, that counsel for the children had a conflict of interest, and that the foster parents did not have unique information to provide to the court. The commissioner granted the de facto parent request. Mother sought a rehearing. A hearing on her application took place on July 22, 2005, before Judge John M. True III. Mother contended the de facto parent request should have been denied on both procedural and substantive grounds. Judge True denied the application for rehearing.
Mother filed a notice of appeal in the case relating to R. P., case No. C-190096, stating she was appealing â€
