A.J. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 8/27/08 A.J. v. Super. Ct. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
A.J., Petitioner, v. THE YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent; YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | C058925 (Super. Ct. No. JV08023) |
A.J. (petitioner), the mother of the minor, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate orders of the juvenile court entered at the dispositional hearing denying reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Petitioner contends the juvenile court erred by refusing to conduct a contested dispositional hearing to address the relative placement request of the paternal grandmother. We shall deny the petition and the request for a stay.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Real party in interest Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services filed a dependency petition in January 2008 concerning the newborn minor after petitioner and the minor tested positive for opiates at the time of the minors birth. The petition alleged the minor was treated for withdrawal symptoms and that the parents had histories of substance abuse and domestic violence. In addition, it was alleged that the parents had failed to reunify with four other children.
While the jurisdictional hearing was pending, the paternal grandmother, with whom the parents other children were placed, requested the minor be placed with her. However, during an unannounced visit to the grandmothers home, it was found that the alarm on the door to the backyard and pool area was deactivated, poisons were accessible, and there was a strong odor of cigarettes in the residence. The air quality in the home was of particular concern because the minor had been hospitalized for bronchial problems. Accordingly, the home was not approved for placement of the minor, and the minor, instead, was placed with a cousin.
The allegations in the petition were sustained, and the social worker recommended that no services be offered to the parents based on their failure to reunify with the minors siblings and their numerous failed attempts at rehabilitation.
The matter was set for a contested dispositional hearing, which, according to petitioner, was for the purpose of addressing the issue of placement. However, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court declined to hold a contested hearing on placement, concluding it was precluded from placing the minor in the grandmothers home when the social services agency had found it to be unsafe. The grandmother and step-grandfather addressed the court, explaining the reasons for two of the problems identified by the social worker and how each had been resolved, and the court directed them to ask the social services agency for another inspection.
Petitioner submitted on the social workers report, and the court adopted the recommendations contained therein and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the minor.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner maintains the juvenile court erred by refusing to allow a contested dispositional hearing on the issue of placement. We directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether petitioner has standing to raise this issue on appeal. We conclude she does not.
In juvenile dependency proceedings, as in civil actions generally [citation], only a party aggrieved by the judgment has standing to appeal. [Citations.] (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 837, quoting In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, 768.) Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolves around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. [Citation.] [Citation.] (Id. at p. 838.) The fact that a parent may take a position in juvenile court on an issue affecting the child does not confer standing on the parent to challenge an adverse ruling on appeal. (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703.) Without a showing that a parents personal rights are affected by a ruling, the parent does not establish standing. (Ibid.)
While reunification efforts are ongoing, parents generally have standing on appeal to raise issues concerning relative placement. This is because one of the rationales for the relative placement preference is that, during reunification, [a] relative, who presumably has a broader interest in family unity, is more likely than a stranger to be supportive of the parent-child relationship and less likely to develop a conflicting emotional bond with the child. (In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1489, 1493.)
On the other hand, when reunification is not being pursued or when efforts to reunify have been terminated, a parent is no longer aggrieved by such placement determinations. Thus, in Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035 (Cesar V.), the appellate court held that a parent who did not contest termination of reunification services did not have standing on appeal to challenge the subsequent denial of a relative placement request because the ruling did not affect his interest in reunification with the children. Although the relative placement request at issue here occurred at the same hearing at which reunification services were denied, petitioner was not seeking services and was contesting only the placement issue. Accordingly, we conclude petitioner is not aggrieved by the courts order denying a hearing on the issue.
Petitioner contends her circumstances are distinguishable because, unlike the parent in Cesar V., she was not given the opportunity to present evidence on the relative placement issue in juvenile court. But regardless of whether a parent is permitted to present evidence on an issue in juvenile court, she does not have standing for purposes of appeal unless her interests are affected by the ruling in question. In the present matter, petitioner was not aggrieved by the juvenile courts ruling denying a hearing on relative placement.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The request for a stay is denied as moot.
RAYE , Acting P.J.
We concur:
MORRISON , J.
HULL, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
