In Re Ag

Jamie D. appeals from September 2007 orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26) to her daughters, A. and M. [1] Three months earlier, the court found termination would not be detrimental to the children but calendared a further section 366.26 hearing because although they had a probability for adoption, there were no available adoptive homes (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(3)). Appellant contends the court violated her due process rights at the September hearing when it sustained objections to her presenting evidence supporting her claim that termination would be detrimental to the children in light of their parent/child relationship with her.

We hold once a court has made a no detriment finding pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (3), neither California's dependency statutory scheme nor federal due process requires the court to revisit the issue at the further section 366.26 hearing unless circumstances had changed or new evidence emerged.

On review, we conclude the court did not err and will affirm.

In November 2005, the Kern County Superior Court adjudged seven-year-old A. and infant M. dependent children, removed them from parental custody,…