In Re Beatrice M.

Good Law
29 Cal. App. 4th 1411·35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 1994Docket Nos. H012251California3,702 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1413 OPINION Mario M. (father) and Christina C. (mother) appeal a judgment terminating their parental rights to their twin daughters, Beatrice and Lupe M. They argue on appeal that their case came within the exception in Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and that the juvenile court improperly interpreted this statute; that the court incorrectly concluded that mother did not have a parental relationship with her daughters; that guardianship, and not adoption, should have been the permanent plan for their children; and that the juvenile court improperly designated the social worker an expert in assessment and selection of permanency plans for dependent minors. We find no error, and will affirm the judgment terminating parental rights. *Page 1414 Factual and Procedural Background Beatrice and Lupe were born on May 17, 1990, suffering from prenatal exposure to heroin and cocaine. They were placed on the following day with their maternal aunt Natalie A., and have lived with her since. A public health nurse has…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.