Opinion
E073868 E073861
03-13-2020
In re H.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.G., Defendant and Appellant. S.G. Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant, Appellant, and Petitioner. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff, Respondents, and Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J272272) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Petition denied. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant, Appellant, and Petitioner. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff, Respondents, and Real Party in Interest.
The juvenile court terminated the guardianship of defendant and appellant, S.G., and scheduled a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. On appeal, S.G. contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's true finding on the supplemental juvenile dependency petition and the order terminating the guardianship. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
S.G. filed a notice of appeal on October 7, 2019, and a notice of intent to file a petition for extraordinary writ on October 11, 2019. On October 22, 2019, we issued an order consolidating the cases, designating the appeal as the master file.
S.G. also seeks review by extraordinary writ of an order setting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition and lift the previously ordered stay.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2017, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS), received a report alleging caretaker absence and incapacity with respect to S.R. (Mother). The reporting party alleged Mother had tested positively for amphetamines, marijuana, opiates, and benzodiazepines at H.R.'s (the Minor) birth. Mother admitted using drugs and being a longtime drug user. The reporting party alleged Mother was homeless and had not received prenatal care.
Mother and father are not parties to this appeal.
Later information suggested Mother was not even aware she was pregnant.
Following the delivery, Mother planned to move in with S.G., the Maternal Grandmother (MGM). Mother had a history of epilepsy and depression and was not taking medication. It was reported that Mother had been suffering mental health problems for the past several years. Mother said she was raped by the father and did not know him; Mother's ex-fiancé was contacted but denied paternity. When interviewing Mother, the social worker found Mother's thoughts and perceptions irrational and delusional at times. The Minor remained at the hospital as a result of ongoing withdrawal symptoms.
CFS personnel filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging Mother had substance abuse issues (b-1), had mental health issues (b-2), and led a transient lifestyle (b-3). On August 16, 2017, the court detained the Minor.
In the August 29, 2017, jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker recommended the court find the allegations in the petition true, remove the Minor from Mother, and set the section 366.26 hearing. The Minor's meconium had tested positively for amphetamines, cannabinoids, and opiates. Mother had admitted using methamphetamine, marijuana, and Norco three days before giving birth to the Minor. Mother's whereabouts were unknown; she had not contacted CFS for visitation with the Minor. Hospital personnel discharged the Minor on August 15, 2017, when the social worker placed the Minor in MGM's home.
On September 5, 2017, CFS personnel filed a first amended juvenile dependency petition adding an allegation that Mother had failed to make arrangements for the Minor and Mother's whereabouts were unknown (g-5). The court again detained the Minor in MGM's home. Mother was not present at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on September 29, 2017. The court found the allegations in the petition true, removed the Minor from Mother's custody, and ordered reunification services for Mother.
In the status review report filed March 23, 2018, the social worker recommended the court terminate Mother's reunification services. Mother's whereabouts remained unknown; she had not made any efforts to contact CFS; she had not had any visitation with the Minor. MGM reported seeing Mother on the streets on one occasion during which Mother appeared intoxicated; MGM encouraged Mother to contact CFS but Mother just walked away.
The Minor showed a strong and secure attachment to MGM who met all his needs. MGM took the Minor to the emergency room twice: on December 12, 2017, for vomiting and constipation and on January 19, 2018, when MGM fell with the Minor in her arms.
Mother failed to appear at the hearing on March 29, 2018. The court terminated Mother's reunification services and scheduled the section 366.26 hearing.
In the section 366.26 report filed August 9, 2018, the social worker recommended the court terminate Mother's parental rights with adoption as the Minor's permanent plan. Mother and the Minor did not have any contact during the reporting period. MGM said of the Minor: "I love him and want him to be the best he can be. I will do whatever it takes to make sure he has everything he needs to be successful in life."
After several continuances, the social worker filed an additional section 366.26 report on January 9, 2019. The social worker now recommended a legal guardianship, with MGM as the guardian, instead of adoption. The maternal grandfather (MGF) was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and dementia; he had attempted to retrieve the Minor and tipped the crib over. MGF then held the Minor too tightly, choking him. MGM called the police who took MGF to the hospital.
MGM reported that due to MGF's failing mental health, he posed a safety risk to the Minor; she would not allow MGF to return to the home. MGF had been moved from the hospital to a nursing facility. The social worker noted, "A[s] the result of this unexpected event, it has been shown that [MGM] has shown a protective capacity for the [Minor], and continues to put the [Minor's] health and safety above all others in the home." The social worker also noted that the Minor hurt his thumb while attempting to shut the bedroom door; he was treated at the hospital. In an additional information report for the court the next day, the social worker reported that MGF passed away on January 7, 2019.
On January 15, 2019, CFS personnel filed letters of guardianship. On the same day, the court appointed MGM as the Minor's legal guardian, retaining jurisdiction with authority to dismiss.
On April 24, 2019, CFS personnel received a referral alleging general neglect of the Minor by MGM. The Minor had been transported to a hospital by ambulance on April 24, 2019, due to a fall from the kitchen counter during which he sustained a head injury. The Minor was diagnosed with a skull fracture, blood clot, and possible contusion; he was admitted to the hospital for two days. According to the social worker: "The hospital reportedly was concerned that [the Minor] has been to the Emergency Room on multiple occasions due to falls. The hospital staff reportedly suspected that the . . . [MGM] may be overwhelmed, may need additional assistance, as she has not been able to keep close supervision of [the Minor]. The hospital reported that the child had fallen two days earlier from the bathroom sink, and it was unknown if the child was taken to the doctor at the time of the fall and this fall was not reported to CFS." MGM reported she did not take the Minor to the doctor when he fell off the sink because he seemed fine.
Hospital personnel had no suspicions of abuse. MGM attributed the Minor's injuries to his being a "'busy boy.'" The social worker "learned" of three prior head injuries as a result of the Minor falling: he had been taken to the emergency room on January 19, 2018, January 27, 2018, and June 7, 2018. CFS personnel were concerned about the frequency and severity of the Minor's injuries. The Minor needed to be assessed for autism but MGM had missed two previously scheduled appointments and had not rescheduled. On May 1, 2019, after the issuance of a detention warrant, Minor was taken into protective custody.
We place "learned" in quotation marks because the social worker had previously described the incident which occurred on January 19, 2018, in her March 23, 2018, report.
The court later noted that it "initially had some concerns regarding the grandmother missing the autism meetings . . . [b]ut having heard her testimony, I'm striking that from consideration. Clearly the grandmother also suffered a personal tragedy [the MGF's death] during the time frame of this case and I'm simply not going to include any of that information in my decision."
CFS personnel filed a supplemental juvenile dependency petition alleging MGM was unable to properly care for and supervise the Minor (s-1). The court detained the Minor on May 6, 2019.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed May 22, 2019, the social worker recommended the court find the allegation true, remove the Minor from MGM without services, rescind the legal guardianship, and set the section 366.26 hearing. In an interview on May 16, 2019, MGM denied the Minor had fallen; however, she "later admitted that [the Minor] ha[d] fallen other times from his high chair in 2018." "She stated that she did not take him to the hospital/doctor at the time[] because other people were telling her that [the Minor] was fine. She stated that she was told, 'Kids are always falling that he is fine.'"
MGM said the day after his injury, the Minor was acting differently, not eating right, and was walking more slowly and differently, so she took him to the doctor. The doctor yelled at her when she requested a CAT scan; the CAT scan showed no abnormalities. She admitted the most recent fall was bad. The social worker observed: "The evidence is further supported with [the Minor's] medical report dating from January 19, 2018, January 27, 2018, June 7, 2018, October 18, 2018, October 25, 2018, and April 24, 2019. All of the medical visits were for head related injuries. The head injuries started happening when the child was less than one year old . . . ."
It is unclear from the record of what injury and on what date MGM was speaking.
The attached medical records for October 25, 2018, were for an abrasion to the Minor's thumb, not a head injury. No medical records for the purported head injuries incurred on October 18, 2018, or April 24, 2019, were attached.
The social worker observed that during visits, MGM "does not demonstrate acts of protection and supportive behaviors toward the child that are consistent with appropriate supervision." MGM allowed the Minor to eat MGM's hair and chew her ponytail during one visit. MGM was observed to not immediately intervene when the Minor would climb a chair or is to do something unsafe. The social worker concluded CFS personnel were "concerned that if [the Minor] continues to remain in the care of the legal guardian, he will continue to sustain further head injur[ies], as the caregiver has shown that she is not capable of protecting and keeping him safe from harm."
The social worker filed an additional information report for the court on August 9, 2019, after the court continued the matter for a contested hearing. The social worker noted that MGM visited with the Minor for two hours each week. MGM appeared to be more patient with the Minor and appeared to understand how to appropriately soothe him.
The social worker further observed that on June 11, 2019, MGM brought her daughter to visit and spent most of the visit talking to one another on the couch. At the June 18, 2019, visit the social worker offered to refer MGM to individual therapy; MGM turned down the offer saying she did not need it. MGM was noted to bring fast food for the Minor to each visit. The social worker observed MGM had difficulty keeping up with the Minor and redirecting him; she did not redirect him when he climbed on the furniture. On July 29, 2019, during a supervised visit, the Minor ran into the wall because he was walking with his eyes closed while wearing MGM's sunglasses. On the same visit, MGM "grabbed [the Minor] aggressively and spanked him three times on the bottom and up his back because he was attempting to do a handstand for the second time during that visit." The social worker addressed her concern with the spanking and MGM said it would not happen again. Since placement there had been no report of the Minor falling.
In an additional information report for the court filed on October 2, 2019, the social worker noted she had received an email reflecting that the Minor was assessed for autism spectrum disorder. The doctor recommended that fast food be removed from his diet. The social worker thereafter suggested to MGM that she cease bringing fast food to the Minor; the following week, MGM brought baked chicken but the Minor did not like it: "After that, [MGM] went back to bringing French fries which she claimed she fried, although they appeared exactly like McDonald French fries. Additionally, the caregiver advised [MGM] that more than one sachet of applesauce gives [the Minor] the runs. However, [MGM] continued to feed [the Minor] more than one sachet of applesauce during the visit." The Minor had not fallen in his placement since being placed; although, the Minor fell and hit his right check while playing on a play structure at his day care.
The social worker testified at the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing on October 7, 2019. She recommended rescindment of the guardianship without services because MGM, "in as much as she loves [the Minor], [she] cannot keep up with him and provide appropriate supervision." MGM acted appropriately in seeking medical attention for the Minor's first fall which occurred on January 27, 2018. Similarly, MGM acted appropriately in seeking medical attention for the Minor after his second fall on June 7, 2018. She likewise acted appropriately in seeking medical attention for the Minor on October 25, 2018, when he received a thumb abrasion. The skull fracture suffered by the Minor, for which he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, was determined to be accidental.
The social worker was concerned MGM cannot care for and supervise the Minor due to the number of falls and the social worker's observations of MGM's attention to the Minor during visitation. It takes MGM "a little bit before she corrects" the Minor when he climbs up a chair. MGM spanked the Minor once during a visit. The social worker had to redirect MGM. Since the Minor was placed in foster care he also fell because he was climbing.
The Minor may be autistic; he met preliminary assessments for being so diagnosed; he was referred for a further assessment to an autism specialist. The social worker referred MGM for therapy "because there was a time she came in looking like she was depressed." MGM turned down therapy. If the court ordered reunification services the social worker would recommend therapy and parenting classes.
Hospital personnel reported they believed MGM was not able to physically keep up with the Minor. The Minor had incurred four significant falls, one resulting in a skull fracture. The social worker did not believe MGM could provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the Minor. MGM had arranged for a teacher to come to the home to help address the Minor's special needs. The social worker was concerned about MGM feeding the Minor French fries. The Minor had not had any falls in the current caregiver's home of which she was aware.
MGM testified the during the January 2018, incident, she was holding the Minor while getting the mail and tripped. She immediately sought medical attention for the Minor. Immediately after the Minor's fall in May 2018, she sought medical attention for him. She was told the Minor did not have a head injury and no follow up was necessary. In June 2018, the Minor fell and hit his head on a pipe. She brought him to urgent care. No follow up appointments were needed. In October 2018, the Minor slammed his finger in the garage door: "it was just a little cut, but she took him to the hospital to make sure it wasn't" broken. She took him for medical care. He did not require follow up appointments. In April 2019, the Minor fell; she immediately called the paramedics.
MGM declined therapy offered by the social worker because she did not believe she needed it. If the court ordered her to do therapy she would. She has not attended a parenting class. With respect to the allegation that she spanked the Minor, MGM testified, "I didn't do what they said I did. I just picked him up and spatted his diaper, barely touched it. Once." "I spatted his diaper basically, and it wasn't hard. It wasn't a hard spank. I don't usually spank him. In fact, I hardly ever did." MGM observed that the Minor never fell during supervised visitation. She had obtained a weekly specialized teacher for the Minor.
MGM's neighbor testified that she sees MGM almost daily and that MGM is able to care for the Minor appropriately. MGM's stepdaughter testified that she interacts with MGM and the Minor on a weekly basis and that MGM properly cares for the Minor. MGM had taken a lot of steps to "childproof" the home.
The court noted that it could not "overlook the number of injuries sustained [by the Minor] in [MGM's] care and I agree that I don't believe they're even as of yet all accounted for." "It remains concerning to the Court that the hospital recognized that even in a supervised setting the grandmother struggled to meet the supervision needs of the child and even in supervised visitation there are concerns that she's not closely supervising the child." The court noted that the Minor never sustained injuries while being watched by MGM's neighbor or in the current caregiver's home. The court found the allegation in the supplemental petition true.
As to the disposition, the court noted that the best interest standard applied. The Minor's counsel agreed with the social worker's recommendation. The court observed, "as noted in the findings for jurisdiction, I do find that there was a lack of appropriate supervision and that led directly to the child's injuries." The Minor has "now been out of the care of grandmother for five months. There's been no additional injuries. He's in a p[ro]spective adoptive concurrent planning home who wishes to provide him permanency and by offering services the Court would be delaying that permanency for the chance we can resolve those issues, and that's not a pathway that's clear to the Court." The court also noted MGM declined therapy and was not enrolled in a parenting class. "So I can't find that it's in the child's best interest to delay permanency on the chance that services may eliminate those issues when there's no indication that the Minor has struggled via the [detention]." The court terminated the guardianship, removed the Minor from MGM's custody, and set the section 366.26 hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
MGM contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's true finding on the allegation in the supplemental petition. We disagree.
"A section 387 petition requires a bifurcated proceeding. The initial phase is a factfinding hearing to determine whether the allegations of the supplemental petition are true, including the ultimate fact necessary to modify a previous placement with a parent or relative, and that the previous disposition has been ineffective in protecting the minor. [Citation.] In addition, the court must conduct a contested hearing to resolve factual disputes and determine whether the allegations of the supplemental petition are true." (In re Jessica C. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 474, 481.)
"'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court." [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] '"[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is appropriate]."'"'" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Substantial evidence supports the court's true finding on the supplemental petition. CFS adduced evidence that the Minor had sustained at least four injuries which required medical care in the period between January 19, 2018, and April 24, 2019. These included: a head injury sustained from a fall on January 19 2018, when MGM was holding the Minor; a head injury sustained on June 7, 2018, from a fall during which the Minor hit his head on a pipe; an abrasion of the Minor's thumb sustained when he slammed his finger in the garage door; and a skull fracture incurred on April 24, 2019, when the Minor fell off the kitchen counter. The latter incident required the Minor's transport to a hospital by ambulance, where he was admitted for two days.
The record also contains evidence of additional injuries sustained by the Minor. MGM testified that in May 2018, she sought medical attention for the Minor after he had a fall. The hospital personnel reported that the Minor had fallen on April 22, 2019, from a bathroom sink; MGM confirmed the fall. MGM "admitted that [the Minor] ha[d] fallen other times from his high chair in 2018." Prior to the supplemental petition, the social worker had reported that the Minor was treated at the hospital when he hurt his thumb while attempting to shut the bedroom door.
Hospital personnel were concerned regarding the number of occasions on which the Minor had been seen in the emergency room due to falls; they suspected MGM might be overwhelmed and unable to closely supervise the Minor. Subsequent observations by the social worker of MGM during supervised visitation confirm that MGM was either unable or unwilling to closely supervise the Minor who frequently engaged in activities which threatened his safety. Since CFS personnel placed the Minor in protective custody over five months earlier, the Minor had not sustained a single injury in the placement home. Thus, substantial evidence supported that allegation that MGM was unable to properly care for and supervise the Minor such that he was at risk of suffering further head injuries.
Although he had sustained an injury while in day care.
B. Disposition
MGM maintains that insufficient evidence supported the removal of the Minor from MGM's custody and termination of the guardianship. We disagree.
"Preliminarily, it bears noting that although guardianship is a more stable solution than foster care, it is not irrevocable and thus falls short of the secure and permanent placement intended by the Legislature. [Citation.] Continuity in a legal guardianship is not equivalent to the security and stability of a permanent caretaker. 'The goal of permanency planning is to end the uncertainty of foster care and allow the dependent child to form a long-lasting emotional attachment to a permanent caretaker.'" (In re Priscilla D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1215-1216.) "[W]here the state removes a child from a guardian under a protective warrant and seeks to change the permanent plan[,] [t]he juvenile court must determine if the guardianship can be preserved through services. If it cannot be . . . the guardianship is terminated . . . ." (In re Priscilla D., at p. 1218; accord In re Jessica C., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 482.)
"Nowhere in the statutory guidelines related to the creation and termination of a legal guardianship in the juvenile court is there any requirement that a county department of social services provide reunification services before a legal guardianship is terminated. Nor is there any requirement that the juvenile court make a finding that adequate reunification services were offered. In fact, as one court has pointed out, 'There is no requirement for reunification services anywhere in this statutory scheme.' [Citation.] At most, the juvenile court may order informal supervision of the legal guardian in order to assist in 'ameliorating' the conditions that led to the request to terminate the legal guardianship." (In re Carlos E. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1418-1419; accord In re Jessica C., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 482.)
"The department . . . is required to show that the child will suffer detriment by clear and convincing evidence before the department can remove the child from the guardian and initiate termination of the guardianship. This stands to reason because the department, acting on the authority of the state, is interjecting itself into the private matters of the family and must have a compelling reason for doing so." (In re Priscilla D., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 1218.)
"'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. "In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court's determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court." [Citation.] "We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court. [Citations.] '"[T]he [appellate] court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find [that the order is appropriate]."'"'" (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.)
Here, the court expressly considered and rejected the prospect of whether services would ameliorate the conditions leading to the request to terminate the legal guardianship. The court noted that MGM had not participated in individual therapy despite being offered those services. For the very same reasons supporting the jurisdictional finding, the juvenile court found that removal of the Minor from MGM and termination of the guardianship were warranted.
Substantial evidence supports the court's ruling. As discussed ante, the Minor sustained a number of serious injuries culminating in skull fracture for which he was admitted to the hospital. Hospital personnel were concerned regarding the number of occasions on which the Minor had been seen in the emergency room due to falls; they suspected MGM might be overwhelmed and unable to closely supervise the Minor. Subsequent observations by the social worker of MGM during supervised visitation confirmed that MGM was either unable or unwilling to closely supervise the Minor who frequently engaged in dangerous activities. Since CFS personnel placed the Minor in protective custody over five months earlier, the Minor had not sustained a single injury in placement. Thus, substantial evidence supported the court's ruling that the Minor should be removed from MGM's custody and the legal guardianship terminated.
MGM cites In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155 (Basilio T.) and In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522 (Henry V.) in support of her contention that insufficient evidence supported the removal of the Minor from her care. Both cases are distinguishable. In Basilio T., the court held that removal of the minors from the parents was not supported by substantial evidence where the court failed to state on the record the facts which led to the removal order; the court noted that the only facts in the record supporting removal were that police had responded to two reports of domestic violence between the parents not involving the minors. (In re Basilio, at pp. 169-171.) The court reasoned that "the minors were not physically harmed . . . ." (Id. at pp. 171-172.) Here, the court stated its reasons for the removal order on the record and found that the Minor was physically harmed due to MGM's failure to adequately supervise him.
In Henry V., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 522, the court held that a single occurrence of substantial physical abuse, three burns on the minor's buttocks, against the minor was insufficient evidence to support removal of the minor from the parent. (Id. at pp. 529-530.) The court reasoned that its holding was bolstered by the failure of the juvenile court to reference the clear and convincing standard the department had the evidentiary burden to prove. (Id. at p. 530.) Here, the court expressly found "that continuance in the home of [MGM] is contrary to the minor's welfare and that there's clear and convincing evidence to show that the minor should be removed from the physical custody of [MGM]."
Moreover, the Minor sustained a skull fracture requiring two days of hospitalization. Furthermore, the skull fracture was only the most recent of a series of injuries sustained by the Minor including other head injuries. Thus, the Minor sustained a more serious injury than the minor in Henry V., and the injuries were not sustained on a single occasion. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's removal of the Minor from MGM and termination of the guardianship.
We disagree with Henry V. that the intentional burning of a minor three times, apparently with a curling iron, without the acceptance of responsibility does not support removal, even if it was only a single occurrence of physical abuse. --------
III. DISPOSITION
The order terminating guardianship is affirmed. Further, the petition for extraordinary writ is denied, and the previously ordered stay of the section 366.26 hearing is lifted.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. CODRINGTON
J.