In re A.D.

Filed 8/25/06 In re A.D. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James C. McGuire, Judge. Affirmed.

Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.S.

Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.B.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellants K.S. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) are the parents of DeShawn B. (born in June 2002), one of the minors who is the subject of this appeal. Mother is also the mother of A.D. (born in February 2000), DeShawn's half sister and similarly a subject of this appeal.^[1] Both parents appeal from the juvenile court's December 22, 2005, orders terminating their parental rights and freeing the children for adoption.

The children were brought to the attention of the San Bernardino Department of Children's Services (DCS) on May 2, 2003, after Mother deliberately injured then three‑year‑old A.D. by breaking the child's leg. The fracture occurred when mother repeatedly stomped on the leg, causing a supra condylar femur fracture, which was extremely painful and which without treatment would have caused the loss of the leg. A.D. had to be placed in a full body cast for a number of months and relegated to the use of crutches until the break healed completely.

At the time of the abuse, Mother was living with Father and their son DeShawn B. Father, disgusted with Mother's abuse of her daughter, took DeShawn B. and left. Mother was subsequently arrested for felony child abuse, and DCS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (e) petition on behalf of A.D. on May 6, 2003.^[2]

Mother waived her trial rights and submitted on the petition at the time of the July 1, 2003, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. A.D. was declared a dependent of the court and removed from Mother's custody. Reunification services were ordered, and the court authorized DCS to seek placement of the child with her maternal grandparents in Flint, Michigan, following ICPC (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children) approval. At the six-month hearing held in January 2004, Mother had been released from county jail, and her reunification services were continued until the 12-month review set for July 2004.

DeShawn became the subject of a section 300 petition on March 1, 2004, because of the ongoing domestic violence perpetrated by Father against Mother. Father, according to Mother (who was once again living with him), had beaten her, leaving bruises on her body and bite marks on her face and arm. Mother's probation officer documented photographically the injuries. During one previous domestic violence incident, Mother asserted Father had shot her in the face. Father had not been convicted of this incident because Mother recanted her allegation of the shooting, and the prosecution was forced to dismiss the charges. Mother, Father, and DeShawn's location could not be ascertained when the 300 petition was filed, and the court issued a protective custody warrant.

On March 24, 2004, Mother and Father were located applying for welfare benefits, and the police were called. Mother and Father fled, leaving DeShawn behind. Between March 24 and April 6, 2004, Mother had been arrested for solicitation in Orange County; she was released from jail on April 7, 2004. Father admitted to the domestic violence and wanted reunification with his son. At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing reunification services were ordered for both parents.

The court granted Mother six additional months of reunification services for A.D. on July 23, 2004, setting an 18-month review for January 21, 2005. Initially after the July hearing both parents appeared to be trying to comply with the reunification plan, and it was felt that DeShawn and A.D. could be returned to their respective parents. However, in February 2005, after DCS had requested a continuance of the 18-month review as to A.D., Mother reported continuing domestic violence against her by Father. When Mother met with the social worker on her case in March, the left side of her face was swollen, but she denied abuse at the hands of Father. Mother had dropped out of the domestic violence program she had been attending, and she and Father were expecting another child. Mother expressed she would rather go to prison and lose her children then stay away from Father.

DCS now recommended termination of parental rights as to both children. The court consolidated the children's cases in April 2005. In January 2005, Mother had been arrested for battery, and in April 2005 Father admitted to grand theft person in exchange for a 180-day jail sentence. Neither Mother nor Father had complied with the reunification plans. The court terminated reunification services on May 31, 2005, and set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother was in custody in county jail and was scheduled to be sentenced to a four-year state prison sentence on July 5, 2005.

A.D.'s grandmother desired adoption, and DCS recommended this as the child's permanent plan. A.D. had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychotropic medication prescribed for her. Despite her problems, she continued to make progress in therapy and tested at an average academic achievement level. Her grandmother remained highly committed to A.D. and provided the child with a â€