San Diego County Heath & Human Sevices Agency v. Renne B.

*1058 Opinion

Renne B. 1 appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, Carl R., Jr. (Carl), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. 2 Carl also appeals the judgment and Renne and Carl have each joined in the other’s appeal. 3 Appellants argue parental rights should not have been terminated because the court did not consider whether the prospective adoptive parents would meet Carl’s educational needs; the prospective adoptive parents’ plan to home school Carl constituted a legal impediment to adoption; the court refused to hear evidence pertaining to Carl’s specific educational needs, denying him due process; the court should have admitted evidence on the issue of whether the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) exception to terminating parental rights applied; and terminating parental rights was not in Carl’s best interests. They also argue the court should not have summarily denied Carl’s section 388 modification petition brought after parental rights were terminated. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carl has cerebral palsy, severe quadriparesis, a seizure disorder, and an uncontrolled and severe psychomotor delay.…