Antoinette M. v. Super.
Filed 3/14/13 Antoinette M. v. Super. Ct. CA2/7
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
ANTOINETTE
M.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real
Party in Interest.
B246652
(Super. Ct.
No. CK12022)
Writ
petition to review order setting hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26. Philip L. Soto,
Judge. Petition granted.
Law Offices
of Katherine Anderson, Jennifer Pichotta and Anuradha Khemka for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
John
F. Krattli, County Counsel, Sara Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party
in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Children’s
Center of Los Angeles (CLC 1),
Ronnie Cheung and Dwana Willis for Real Party in Interest
N.M.
________________________________
Petitioner Antoinette M. seeks
Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l);
8.452) from the juvenile court’s order, made at the dispositional hearing after
the court denied reunification services,
setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider termination of
parental rights and implementation of a permanent plan for her six-month-old
daughter N.M. Antoinette M. contends the
juvenile court erroneously found that she was not entitled to family
reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), which
disentitles a parent from receiving reunification services when she has
previously failed to reunify with a sibling or half sibling of the child and
“has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led
to removal of the sibling or half sibling . . . .â€
In this case, the evidence
established that siblings and half siblings of N.M. were removed from
Antoinette M. in earlier proceedings due to a substance abuse problem, and
Antoinette M.’s reunification services were later terminated. The dependency petition as to N.M. alleges
she was removed from Antoinette M. based on mental health issues, and does not
allege Antoinette M. has continued to use drugs. Nor was any evidence presented at the
dispositional hearing that Antoinette M. continues to suffer from a substance
abuse problem.
In response to the instant
petition, the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department) has submitted a
letter conceding that the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services
to Antoinette M. and setting the matter for a hearing under section 366.26 must
be set aside. Counsel for N.M. has also
advised this court that N.M. does not oppose a grant of relief to Antoinette M.
The petition is granted. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court,
which is directed to proceed as follows:
The court shall vacate its order of December 5, 2012 denying reunification services and
setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, and conduct a new dispositional
hearing to determine the appropriate services to be provided to Antoinette M.
by the Department. Antoinette M. shall
receive reunification services for a period no shorter than six months.
This decision shall become
final as to this court on filing. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).)
JACKSON,
J.
We concur:
PERLUSS,
P. J.
WOODS,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Antoinette
M. does not challenge the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing N.M.
from her custody and ordering N.M. placed in foster care.
