J.P. v. Super.
Filed 12/5/13 J.P. v. Super. Ct. CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
J.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA
CLARA
Respondent,
SANTA
CLARA COUNTY
DEPT. OF FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
Real Party in
Interest.
No. H040114
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct.
No. JD21226)
Petitioner
J.P., father of the minor J.G., seeks a writ of mandate (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.452)
title="">[1] directing
the juvenile court to vacate its orders setting a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26 hearing
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] and
terminating family reunification services
and to order additional family reunification services for him. He claims that he is entitled to this relief
because substantial evidence does not
support the juvenile court's finding that reasonable reunification services
were provided.
title="">[3] Specifically, he asserts that the Santa Clara
County Department of Family and Children's Services (Department or DFCS)
"failed to follow-up" with its critical referral of father to a
Parenting the Medically Fragile Child class.
We conclude that substantial
evidence supports the challenged finding and deny writ relief on the merits.
I
Procedural History
Dependency Petition
On May 16, 2012, a
on behalf of Baby Boy G. The court issued a protective custody warrant for him.
On May 18, 2012, a first amended
petition was filed on behalf of minor J.G. under section 300, subdivision (b)
(parental failure to protect). The
petition alleged the following. Mother
tested positive for methamphetamines at the time of minor's delivery and she had
admitted to daily use of heroin. Minor J.G.
had been born at 35 weeks gestation. Mother
received no prenatal care during the pregnancy.
At the time of the petition, minor was on a medical ventilator in
intensive care at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (VMC).
Minor J.G.
had three half-siblings. They had been
removed from mother's custody at various times and she had failed to reunify
with them. Her parental rights had been
terminated in 1997 as to one half-sibling and in 2009 as to the other two.
Mother had
an extensive criminal record. Her record
included "multiple convictions since 2006 for use/under the influence of a
controlled substance, possession of a narcotic controlled substance, possession
of controlled substance paraphernalia, [and] possession of a hypodermic
needle/syringe." Mother was a
registered narcotics offender until November
21, 2018.
Petitioner
J.P. had stated that he was unable to provide for the care of the child due to
a lack of support, financial stability and transportation.
Jurisdiction and
Disposition Orders
A
jurisdiction report was filed. At the
time of the report, minor was in protective custody and remained at VMC in the
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU).
On June 26, 2012, the juvenile court
conducted the jurisdiction hearing.
Petitioner was not present. The
court sustained the first amended petition, finding that its allegations as
amended were true and minor J.G. was a child described by section 300,
subdivision (b).
At the time
of the disposition report, dated June
26, 2012, minor was still in VMC's NICU. Minor's prolonged stay was attributed to the
need to wean him off the morphine used to deal with his withdrawal symptoms
from mother's heroin abuse during pregnancy.
Minor J.G. had been diagnosed with a cleft palate. The DFCS had made unsuccessful attempts to
communicate with petitioner. Petitioner resided
with mother but they were not married.
The report set out the evidence supporting the petition's allegations.
An addendum
report indicated that a paternity test had shown there was a 99.99 percent
probability that petitioner was minor's biological father. Another addendum report recommended family
reunification services to petitioner to assist him in understanding the
dynamics surrounding mother's substance abuse problems and appropriate
parenting to keep minor safe. The report indicated that petitioner was absent
from the home for the majority of the day due to his work responsibilities.
A
dispositional hearing was held on August
31, 2012. Petitioner J.P. was
declared to be the presumed father of minor J.G. The court declared minor J.G. to be a dependent
child of the court. It ordered minor to
continue under the Department's care, custody and control for placement with a
foster home.
The court
ordered both parents to participate in and successfully complete the
Department's Parent Orientation Class and a substance abuse parenting
class. In addition, mother was required
to submit to random testing, attend and complete a 12-step program, undergo a
substance abuse assessment and complete recommended drug treatment programs,
complete an "aftercare" drug treatment program, develop an "aftercare"
relapse prevention plan, and participate in individual counseling. Petitioner J.P. was required to attend and
participate in weekly Al-Anon meetings at least once a week and to provide
written proof of attendance. The court
ordered supervised visitation of one hour at least twice a week for each parent.
Six-Month Review
The
six-month review report, dated March 4,
2013, indicated that minor suffered from some serious medical
problems. During his hospitalization, he
had undergone surgery to insert a G-tube into his stomach due to a failure to
thrive and inability to bottle feed. He
had been diagnosed with "microdeletion of chromosome 15, a rare genetic
condition . . . ."
The report stated that "[e]very person with a 15q13.3 microdeletion
is unique" but children with such a condition were "likely to need
support" for "learning, speech and communication delays, seizure or
abnormal EED [sic], delayed mobility due to low muscle tone, [and] behavioral
difficulties such as autistic spectrum disorder or ADHD" (attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder). In
addition, the condition sometimes resulted in "aggressive behavior and
rage and subtly unusual facial features."
At the time
of that report, minor required special attention because of his G-tube dependency,
his chromosome microdeletion diagnosis, and his cleft palate. His oral feedings had not improved much and
his foster parents were keeping a detailed food log for the feeding therapist. The
report noted that feeding him required his foster parents to be aware of "the
signs of food going into his sinuses" and they usually kept "a bulb
syringe suction nearby in case the food [came] out of his nose."
The six-month
review report stated that minor's physical therapist indicated that minor
continued to have low tone in his legs and was not making as much progress as
she would like. The foster parents were
spending a lot of time working with him on improving his leg tone.
The report further
indicated that parents had arrived late to their Parent Orientation Class and they
had not been allowed into the class. The
social worker had submitted new referrals for that class. Both parents had completed a parenting class
for ages one to five in October 2012.
Spanish-speaking Al-Anon meetings but he was not consistently attending
meetings. The social worker noted petitioner
had difficulty attending the meetings due to his demanding work schedule and
evening supervised visits.
In the
six-month review report, the social worker recommended that parents learn about
the requirements for caring of a medically fragile child such as minor. It stated that parents should attend minor's
"medical appointments with his occupational therapist, neurologist,
craniofacial surgeons who will repair his cleft palate, his pediatrician, the
feeding evaluations with a specialized therapist, the public health nurse,
physical therapist and gastroenterologist for G-tube change out."
An addendum
report, dated March 4, 2013, stated that minor had been admitted to the pediatric
intensive care unit at VMC with a respiratory infection. An addendum report,
dated April 2, 2013, reported that minor had been released from the hospital
but continued to have significant difficulty feeding. Minor was receiving daily "overnight
G-tube feedings" and he had "a complicated feeding regimen." The social worker was investigating whether
the Department's public health nurses could provide coaching on G-tube feedings
and minor's daily care. In that report,
the social worker specifically recommended that the court require parents, as
part of their case plans, to complete a Parenting the Medically Fragile Child
class and attend minor's scheduled medical appointments in order to better
understand and appreciate the care necessary to meet his special needs.
At the
sixth-month review hearing on April 2, 2013, which followed successful
mediation, the court made additional orders.
As to father, the court required him to "engage in all medical
appointments with the child in order to comprehend and prepare to understand
the extent of care needed to care for a child with special medical needs" and
apparently required him to complete a class on parenting the medically fragile
child. The court ordered minor to
continue in a foster home placement.
Report for 12-Month
Review
The report
for the 12-month review hearing (then scheduled for July 24, 2013) recommended
that the court terminate family reunification services for both parents and
order a section 366.26 hearing. It
stated that minor "continues to be a medically-fragile child with
extensive health-related difficulties requiring hypervigilance on the part of
the caregivers." It restated that minor
had been diagnosed with microdeletion of chromosome 15q13.3, a rare genetic
condition. The report reiterated that
the condition may result in "learning, speech and communication delays,
seizure or abnormal EEG, delayed mobility due to low muscle tone, behavioral
difficulties such as autistic spectrum disorder or Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)" and sometimes in "aggressive behavior
and rage and subtly unusual facial features."
The report
indicated that minor had undergone surgery in May 2013 to repair his cleft
palate and implant tubes in his ears. Minor
continued to require feeding by G-tube because of his difficulty with feeding
and daily monitoring of his caloric intake.
He was seeing a developmental specialist once a week through the Early
Start Program and he was on the program's wait list for a physical therapist. He had been referred for "medical
therapy" and he was also was scheduled for an EEG. Minor was still experiencing swallowing
difficulties and his caregivers were engaging in a lengthy and exhaustive effort
to secure a "swallow exam." Minor
was globally-delayed and he had been referred to San Andreas Regional Center.
In the
report, the social worker emphasized that, because of minor's complex and
pervasive medical needs, caregivers must be able to navigate the various
medical systems and facilitate communication between multiple medical
providers, to assess his changing needs and respond flexibly, and to be
attentive to and identify changes in minor's behavior and presentation. In the prior six months, minor had seen a
pediatrician, a pediatric neurologist, a pediatric gastroenterologist, a
pediatric geneticist, a physical therapist, an audiologist, a pediatric ear,
nose, and throat specialist, a craniofacial team, and a pediatric plastic
surgeon. As to G-tube feedings, minor
was at risk of death if he aspirated because he was given too much liquid by
G-tube or he was not allowed to sit upright for a sufficient time after being
fed by G-tube. The social worker stated
that minor's mental health and well-being would require careful monitoring
throughout his development.
Among other
services, the social worker had arranged for G-tube feeding training at the
hospital following minor's surgery in May 2013.
The social worker had arranged for parents to attend medical
appointments and for a social worker to be present at those appointments. A nurse had supervised the medical aspects of
mother's visits with minor and provided training and support to mother
regarding minor's medical care.
Although
mother had been participating in medical appointments, she had difficulty
retaining the information presented. The
nurse who supervised the medical aspects of mother's visits and minor's foster
parents had ultimately concluded that mother would not be able to safely perform
minor's G-tube feedings without the direct supervision of licensed nursing
personnel. In her report, the social
worker stated that it had been "reported/witnessed that not only does
[mother] consistently require[] a lot of guidance and repetition to understand
sometimes basic concepts, she also lacks the ability to adapt whatever
information she is given to respond to any variation in [minor's] needs during
visitation."
According
to the report, mother had stopped submitting to the required drug tests. Mother had last tested on June 19, 2013. She had not shown up to or participated in
her substance abuse treatment program since July 3, 2013. As of the writing of the report, mother had
missed her doses of methadone for four days.
Mother had not returned the social worker's calls made on July 17, 2013
and July 18, 2013. Mother had not shown
up for her visit with minor on July 18, 2013.
The social worker had no contact with mother since July 11, 2013 and the
social worker was at that time "highly concerned about her risk for
relapse . . . ."
As to petitioner,
the social worker had engaged in "[f]ace to face monthly contact
visits" with father. On March 29,
2013, she met with him and then submitted a referral for a Parenting the
Medically Fragile Child class. She did
this even before the juvenile court ordered petitioner to take the class at the
six-month review hearing on April 2, 2013.
At the time of the report, petitioner was enrolled in the class that
commenced on July 26, 2013. The social worker
had explored the possibility of other programs by contacting VMC and
communicating with multiple treatment providers but, as of the time of the
report, she had been unable to identify another resource.
Petitioner successfully
completed the Parenting Children Ages 1-5 in late October 2012. Petitioner had not complied, however, with some
other parts of his case plan.
The social
worker reported that, although father was aware of minor's medical fragility
and understood minor required "the highest level of diligence and
attention," father had not attended minor's medical appointments and
father had not made efforts to learn more about, or participate more in,
minor's care. Petitioner had "consistently
placed the burden of care" of minor on mother. He told the social worker during the monthly
contact meetings that he was relying on mother to attend the medical
appointments on his behalf because his job limited his participation. Parents viewed mother as minor's main
caregiver and petitioner as the financial provider. Petitioner openly admitted that he was not in
the position to meet minor's medical needs alone.
As to the
requirement of attending weekly Al-Anon meetings, father had not provided the
required proof of attendance to the social worker. Nevertheless, she believed, based on her
conversations with father, that he was attending at least some of the meetings
and he was benefiting from them.
In her
report, the social worker concluded that neither parent was able to provide
adequate care for minor even though both wanted to.
An addendum
report, dated August 30, 2013, again informed the court that mother's last drug
test had occurred on June 19, 2013.
Father told the social worker on August 8, 2013 that he believed mother was
using illicit substances again based on her behavior and appearance. On that same date, father stated that
"it was 'an impossibility' for him to provide adequate care to [minor J.G.]
on his own" and their "plan had been for [mother] to provide most of
the medical care for [minor J.G.] while he worked."
The
addendum report stated that, in a meeting on August 22, 2013 with petitioner
and petitioner's brother, both parties agreed that petitioner was not capable
of meeting minor's complex medical and other needs and it was in the minor's
best interests to terminate family reunification services. The social worker was recommending termination
of those services because mother was no longer communicating with the
Department and she had "completely disengaged from all elements of her
case plan" and petitioner father was unable to provide adequate parenting
"given his inflexible work schedule and the complex nature of [minor
J.G.'s] medical needs." The social
worker believed that petitioner had reached the realization that his son's
medical needs surpassed his capacity to provide adequate parenting.
Contested 12-Month
Review Hearing
A contested
12-month review hearing was held on August 30, 2013. Mother failed to appear. The 12-month review report and the August 30,
2013 addendum report were admitted into evidence. Petitioner called social worker Susannah
Folick as a witness.
Folick
acknowledged that petitioner father spoke Spanish and was essentially
monolingual. She stated that she met
with parents in mid-March and added the Parenting the Medically Fragile Child
class. She initiated the referral in
March or April but the first available class began on July 26, 2013 and would
be conducted in English. An enrollment
letter, dated July 19, 2013 and written in English, was sent to
petitioner. Folick testified that if
petitioner had expressed an interest in attending, she would have provided him
with a Spanish language interpreter. She explained this option to him in
Spanish during their monthly contact meetings.
Folick
acknowledged that a key factor in this dependency case was minor's medical
fragility. She admitted that she was
concerned that petitioner did not have the parenting skills to care for a
medically fragile child such as minor.
In addition
to offering the Parenting the Medically Fragile Child class, Social Worker
Folick had arranged for both parents to have access to minor's medical
appointments beginning April 10, 2013 and a social worker to be present at all
medical appointments. She arranged
appointments with the doctors on the day of minor's surgery in May 2013 and the
day after surgery. She had written a
letter on behalf of petitioner to his employer to allow him to attend the
surgery. Folick offered to find a nurse
to provide "G-tube feeding training" during petitioner's visitation
with minor. In their monthly contact
visits, Folick and petitioner discussed what more the social worker could do to
support petitioner. In each of their
monthly contact visits, they had discussed the importance of petitioner understanding
minor's medical needs in the event mother was unable to reunify.
Petitioner did
not attend any of minor's medical appointments.
He was present, however, for his visit on the day of and the day after minor's
surgery. He participated in the "G-tube
feeding training" at the hospital on the day after surgery.
From the
outset, petitioner had indicated to the social worker that parental roles were
divided. Mother was the main caregiver
and the parent to attend appointments with doctors. Petitioner had a rigid employer, he could not
get out of work, and consequently he did not attend minor's medical
appointments.
In Social
Worker Folcik's opinion, petitioner was presently unable to take care of
minor's medical needs and it would take much more than the parenting class to
ready him for the role of caretaker. Father
had not sought out opportunities to learn how to medically care for minor.
Folcik had
looked for another parenting class that started before July 2013 but she had
been unable to find an alternative. Even
if petitioner father were able to complete a class regarding parenting the
medically fragile child, she did not think it was likely that minor could be
safely returned to him because he still would not be in a position to provide
adequate care to minor. She explained
that minor's medical needs were unique and different than the needs of other
medically fragile children and minor's special needs would not be covered in
the class. In her view, the class
offered group support with other parents dealing with medically fragile children. But the class would not teach the specific
techniques, daily care and routines, or the ability to read minor's condition "in
the moment" as necessary to ensure minor's overall needs were met. The class would not adequately address the feeding
problems, which posed "a risk of harm and potential death" to minor,
or his other particular medical issues.
Minor had multiple medical providers and specialists and a rare
chromosomal microdeletion syndrome. Any
caregiver of minor needed to be acutely aware of his multiple specific needs
and be able to track them over time among multiple medical professionals.
Petitioner
father also testified. He stated that the
letter that he had received in the mail about the parenting class was in
English and he speaks Spanish and the class was being offered in English. According to petitioner, the social worker
and he discussed the fact that the class was in English and she merely said
that "she was going to see about that . . . ." He indicated that he was willing to attend
the class with an interpreter but it would be better for him if the class was held
in Spanish.
When
petitioner was asked whether he understood how to feed minor, he replied,
"I think supposedly and besides there's a pediatrician who's going to give
notes about each change each day, keeping a record." Petitioner had fed minor using the G-tube
only twice during visitation. He
acknowledged that he was given the opportunity to attend minor's medical
appointments and he had been offered the opportunity to receive training in how
to care for his son. Petitioner admitted
that he had not attended minor's medical appointments and he had not been trained
to care for minor.
The
juvenile court recognized that minor continued to be "a medically fragile
child with extensive health related difficulties which require hypervigilance
on the part of his caregivers." Minor
still required feeding through a G-tube and he was seeing multiple medical
professional in various disciplines. The
court observed that the "threshold for adequate care [was] significantly
higher than that for children without his complex medical needs."
As to the
requirement that petitioner attend Al-Anon meetings, the court noted petitioner
had never provided his Al-Anon meeting slips to the social worker. Although petitioner had introduced purported
meeting slips into evidence at the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court
found that "all of the entries appeared to be in the same handwriting even
though different secretaries [were] listed for the various meetings." The court did not give "any weight"
to the meeting slips because they "appear[ed] to be doctored."
The juvenile
court concluded that the social worker had "worked hard to engage the parents
in services and . . . offer services designed to meet the child's
special needs." Petitioner father
had a landscaping job that provided little flexibility and, although he had
consistently expressed his love for minor, his job interfered with his ability
to assume a caretaking role. Petitioner
had chosen to rely upon mother to attend minor's medical appointments and, he
had not, for the most part, attended them himself. The court concluded that petitioner did not
comply with the most critical aspect of the case plan, attending minor's
medical appointments, and he was "unlikely to do so in the foreseeable
future due to his work commitments."
The court
found that the social worker's testimony was both credible and persuasive. The juvenile court found that return of minor
to his parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety,
protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing.
It found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services,
designed to aid parents to overcome the problems that led to minor's initial
removal and continued out-of-home custody, had been offered or provided to them. The court terminated family reunification
services and ordered a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) to
be held.
II
Analysis
The
juvenile court was authorized to set a section 366.26 hearing at the 12-month
review hearing provided there was "clear and convincing evidence that
reasonable services ha[d] been provided or offered to the parents or legal
guardians." (§ 366.21, subd.
(g)(4); see § 366.21, subd. (g)(1) ["The court may not order that a
hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing
evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent
or legal guardian"]; see also §§ 361.5, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3)
[period for reunification services]; 366.21, subd. (f) ["The court shall
also determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent
or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and
continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or
legal guardian"].) "In any
case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall
be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the
parent or legal guardian."
(§ 366.21, subd. (h).)
"The
adequacy of reunification plans and the reasonableness of DCFS's efforts are
judged according to the circumstances of each case. (Robin
V. v. Superior Court [(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1158,] 1164
. . . .) Moreover, DCFS
must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a family reunification
plan. (Ibid.)" (
Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345.) "To
support a finding reasonable services were
offered or provided, 'the record should show that the supervising agency
identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered
of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts
to assist the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult . . . .'
(In re Riva M. (1991) 235
Cal.App.3d 403, 414 . . . .)" (Tracy
J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.)
This court
reviews a juvenile court's finding that reasonable reunification services have
been offered and provided to the parents under the substantial evidence
standard. (Amanda H. v. Superior Court, supra,
166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1346; see In re
Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
Reviewing courts "determine whether substantial evidence supports
the trial court's finding, reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences
to uphold the court's ruling. (
538, 545 . . . )" (
Cal.App.4th 586, 598.) In evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence, "[i]t is not our function, of course, to
reweigh the evidence or express our independent judgment on the issues before
the trial court. (In re Laura F. [(1983) 33 Cal.3d 826,] 833
. . . .)" (
423.)
It is not disputed
that the mother was offered or provided reasonable services to address her
substance abuse problems. Nevertheless,
at the time of the 12 month review, mother was not in contact with the social
worker, she was not following her case plan, and she may have relapsed into
substance abuse.
Early on, the
Department gave a list of Spanish-speaking Al-Anon meetings to petitioner. He failed to provide written proof of
attendance to the social worker as required and the juvenile court rejected the
proffered proof of attendance at the review hearing as incredible.
Like
mother, petitioner was provided with classes relevant to parenting minor, who
was taken into protective custody not long after being born. Although petitioner had been referred to a
parent orientation class, the record does not show that he attended and
successfully completed the class as did mother.
Petitioner was offered and did complete a class on parenting children ages
one to five. At the time of the 12-month
review report he was enrolled in the Parenting the Medically Fragile Child
class, which was set to start on July 26, 2013.
As
indicated, the social worker arranged for parents to attend minor's medical
appointments, under the supervision of a social worker, beginning on April 10,
2013. She arranged for the G-tube
training at the hospital following minor's surgery in May 2013. The social worker wrote a letter to
petitioner's employer to facilitate his attendance at the surgery. The social worker met monthly with petitioner
in person and, during each of those visits, she again explained the importance
of understanding minor's medical needs. Nevertheless,
petitioner had not attended minor's medical appointments. The social worker also offered to find a
nurse to provide "G-tube feeding training" during visitation with
minor but petitioner apparently did not accept this offer.
There is no
dispute that minor is a medically fragile child with complex and ongoing
medical needs. Unfortunately for
petitioner, parents chose to operate under a division of labor that led petitioner
to not attend his medically fragile son's medical appointments and to leave the
responsibility of learning about minor's medical needs and care to mother.
Petitioner
now claims that reasonable services were not provided or offered because the
Department failed to provide him with "a viable referral to a Medically
Fragile Parenting class" conducted in Spanish. We reject this claim.
The
juvenile court impliedly found credible the social worker's testimony
indicating that she took steps to enroll petitioner in the Parenting the
Medically Fragile Child class even before the court made its order and she actively
sought to find an alternative class that began before July 2013. The court also believed her testimony that
she offered to provide a Spanish interpreter to petitioner to enable him to
attend the class that began July 26, 2013, which was to be given in English,
and she explained this option to him in Spanish but he expressed no interest in
attending. We note that at the time of
the 12-month review hearing in late August 2013, petitioner would have been
about a month into that class had he chosen to attend with an interpreter.
While attending
the July 2013 Parenting the Medically Fragile Child class with an interpreter was
not a perfect solution for petitioner, "[t]he standard is not whether the
services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but
whether the services were reasonable under the circumstances." (In re
Misako R., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at
p. 547.) In light of all the services
provided or offered, the timing of the class and language in which it was
conducted did not render the services as a whole unreasonable.
On this
record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's
finding that reasonable services were provided or offered to petitioner.
DISPOSITION
The
petition for writ of mandate is denied.
Petitioner's request for a stay of the section 366.26 hearing, presently
calendared for December 18, 2013, is denied as moot. Our decision is final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i),
8.490(b).)
_________________________________
ELIA,
J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
RUSHING, P. J.
______________________________
PREMO, J.
further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
further statutory references are to Welfare and Institutions Code.
