San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Ines N.

This is an appeal from a permanency planning order made by the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25 2 regarding the four children of appellant Ines N. (Mother). Ruth M., the oldest of the four children, was placed in long-term foster care in one foster home, and Betzel M. (Betsy), Thomas M., and Maria M. (collectively, the three younger children) were placed in long-term foster care together in another foster home. Mother contends the juvenile court prejudicially erred when it refused to relieve her court-appointed attorney from representing her before the contested permanency planning hearing. Mother also attacks the permanency planning order on several other grounds: it was made too soon after the juvenile court last removed the children from Mother’s home, there was no express finding that reasonable reunification services had been provided, and the order is not supported by sufficient evidence. None of these contentions has merit. We affirm the order.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

A. Procedural History Leading to the Permanency Planning Hearing

These four children were born to Mother and her former husband (who is now…