County Health v. Sonia P.
| Citation | 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2000 |
| Parties | (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2000) In re FRANK L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SONIA P., Defendant and Appellant. D034497 Filed |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter E. Riddle, Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John J. Sansone, County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Robert Wayne Gehring, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Sonia P. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order placing her son Frank with his paternal aunt (Aunt) in North Carolina because separating Frank from his siblings was not in his best interests. Mother also contends Frank received ineffective assistance of counsel because attorney represented him as well as two of his siblings. Because Mother has no standing to raise either issue, we affirm the order.
A January 1998 dependency petition alleges Mother was incarcerated,1 there was no other adult2 available to care for Frank and his father's whereabouts were unknown. A true finding was made on the petition in July.
Frank's two siblings, Ciera and Joseph, live in San Diego. Ciera was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and dysthymic disorder, early onset. Joseph also had a depressive disorder and had been living in a licensed group home since March 1995 due to his need for a secure, structured, therapeutic setting.
The social worker located Father shortly before the 12-month review hearing. Father was unable to provide a home for Frank, but asked if he could be placed with his sister, a licensed foster care parent in North Carolina. Aunt, who had not seen Frank since he was one year old, was willing to take Frank and become his guardian, and was willing to take Ciera if her other foster care child was removed from her home. Mother was opposed to Frank going to North Carolina, but stated that Aunt is a "nice lady with a very nice home."
At the 12-month hearing, the court found clear and convincing evidence that there was a compelling reason that Frank was not a proper subject of adoption and had no one willing to accept legal guardianship. Accordingly, the court set the permanent plan for long-term foster care and set a post-permanency review hearing. Mother did not seek review of this determination.
In August, Aunt's home was approved as an acceptable placement. Aunt and her husband were committed to providing a stable home for Frank and believed it was important for the family to stay together. They wanted to foster because they could not have children of their own.
At the post permanency hearing, Joseph testified he did not want Frank to move to North Carolina because they would not be able to see each other. Ciera testified she did not want Frank to move because she would miss him. Frank testified it was a "good idea" for him to live with Aunt. Although he would be a "little sad" about leaving his siblings, he would rather live with Aunt than stay with Ciera.
The social worker recommended Frank be placed with Aunt and that separating the siblings would be detrimental to Ciera and Joseph, but not Frank.
The court ordered Frank be placed in North Carolina with Aunt, and that funds be provided for telephone calls among the siblings.
The Agency contends Mother does not have standing to contest the finding that it is in Frank's best interest to be placed with Aunt. In response to our request, the Agency also stated Mother does not have standing to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel argument on Frank's behalf. We conclude that Mother does not have standing to raise either issue.
Generally, parents can appeal judgments or orders in juvenile dependency matters. (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734.) However, a parent must also establish she is a "party aggrieved" to obtain a review of a ruling on the merits. (Ibid.) Therefore, a parent cannot raise issues on appeal from a dependency matter that do not affect her own rights. (In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541.) Standing to appeal is jurisdictional. (Marsh v. Mountain Zephyr, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 289, 295.)
The interest of siblings or other relatives in their relationship with the minor is separate from that of the parent. (In re Devin M., supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1541.) Therefore, a parent has no standing to raise an issue related to the minor's right to visit his siblings. (In re Nachelle S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1557, 1561.) Likewise, the parent has no standing to raise issues related to the minor's right to see his grandparents. (In re Gary P. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 875, 877.)
Because Mother's argument that the court's order does not serve Frank's best interest is based on the potential change in Frank's relationship with his siblings or his grandmother, an issue not related to Mother's interest, she lacks standing to raise that issue on appeal. (In re Nachelle S., supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 1562 [].)
Likewise, Mother does not have standing to raise the issue of whether Frank's counsel was ineffective as a result of his counsel's representation of him and his siblings. Mother claims she has standing because her parental rights are still intact, giving her the right to appeal any decision affecting Frank's best interest. She also claims standing because her interests are intertwined with Ciera's and Joseph's interests, neither of whom wants Frank to go to North Carolina.
However, these factors do not give Mother standing. "[T]he mere fact a parent takes a position on a matter at issue in a juvenile dependency case which affects his or her child does not alone constitute a sufficient reason to establish standing to challenge an adverse ruling on it." (In re Carissa G., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 736.) To have standing, Mother must show how the alleged conflict of interest affects her. Instead, she only cites its adverse impact on Frank, Ciera and Joseph. Without some showing that her personal rights were affected, Mother has no standing.
Nor does the fact Mother's interests may be intertwined with Joseph and Ciera create standing. Even if the fact that Joseph's and Ciera's interests conflicted with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Frank L.
... ... In re FRANK L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law ... San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, ... Sonia P., Defendant and Appellant ... ...