Filed 1/26/99

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re RICHARD C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

  

SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY OF SOLANO COUNTY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RENEE C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

A082506

(Solano County

Super. Ct. No. 27415)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR REHEARING AND

MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

THE COURT:

The petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in judgment. It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 30, 1998 be modified in the following particulars:

The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: "Renee’s motion for a bonding study came too late in the proceedings to be a necessary part of the court’s efforts to develop a permanent plan for the children."

The first two sentences in the second paragraph should read: "Richard was born in January 1988 and Scott in March 1994. The boys were declared dependent children in March 1996, after Richard reported that Renee’s boyfriend Scott R. was sexually abusing him."

The first sentence of the sixth paragraph should read: "Our Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the shift in emphasis at the section 366.26 hearing and rejected due process challenges to this aspect of the statutory scheme."

The last paragraph should read: "Bonding studies after the termination of reunification services would frequently require delays in permanency planning. Similar requests to acquire additional evidence in support of a parent’s claim under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) could be asserted in nearly every dependency proceeding where the parent has maintained some contact with the child.2 The Legislature did not contemplate such last-minute efforts to put off permanent placement. (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 310 ["lengthy and unnecessary delay in providing permanency for children" is "the very evil the Legislature intended to correct"].) While it is not beyond the juvenile court’s discretion to order a bonding study late in the process under compelling circumstances, the denial of a belated request for such a study is fully consistent with the scheme of the dependency statutes, and with due process. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Renee’s motion for a bonding study."

Footnote 2 should read:

"2 Nothing in our opinion should be read to curtail a parent’s right to discover existing evidence in order to support a section 388 petition. (See California Rules of Court, rule 1420 [governing prehearing disclosures of information].)"

 

Dated: ___________________

____________________________ P. J.