Filed 11/18/20 In re K.B. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE In re K.B., a Person Coming Under B305177 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP06044A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.B., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 2 V.B. (Grandmother), the paternal grandmother of infant K.B., appeals from a dependency court parental rights termination order. Grandmother argues the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) did not properly assess her as a possible placement for K.B. Specifically, we are asked to decide whether the Department should have done more to assess Grandmother when she expressed conditional interest in taking custody of K.B. and whether the Department adequately assessed Grandmother after she later expressed unequivocal interest in having K.B. placed with her. We also consider whether the juvenile court exercised independent judgment in applying the relative placement preference. I. BACKGROUND A. Initial Dependency Proceedings K.B. was born in September 2018. Within days, the Department received two calls expressing concerns about her welfare. The first caller reported K.B. and her mother S.B. (Mother) were ready for discharge from the hospital and Mother appeared to be emotionally unstable. Both Mother and K.B. tested positive for marijuana, but K.B. did not exhibit signs of withdrawal. The second caller reported a domestic violence incident at the hotel where Mother and K.B. stayed after leaving the hospital. The Department temporarily detained K.B. from Mother and Father and filed a dependency petition alleging K.B. was subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under Welfare and 3 Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The five- count petition alleged domestic violence between Mother and Father, the parents’ use of marijuana, and Father’s untreated mental and emotional problems put K.B. at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The juvenile court detained K.B. and ordered monitored visitation for both parents. The court also ordered the Department to assess all K.B.’s identified relatives as possible placement options. Later in November 2018, the court sustained all counts of the dependency petition and ordered family reunification services for Mother and Father. B. Consideration of Grandmother as a Placement Option In July 2019, the juvenile court found Mother and Father had not substantially complied with their case plans, terminated reunification services, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals