In re Adam G.

Filed 7/11/06 In re Adam G. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

This appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of three minor children and placing them for adoption is pursued by a maternal grandmother aggrieved by the denial of her motion for modification of a previous order. The father joins in the appeal by incorporating by reference her arguments. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The record of this protracted dependency proceeding begins with juvenile dependency petitions for Adam G. and Andres G. filed on November 15, 2002, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. During the course of the proceeding, the mother, Zita G., gave birth to two more children by the presumed father, Vincent J. Adrian J. was born in August of 2003, and Alejandro J. was born in November of 2004. The maternal grandmother, Rosario G., maintained custody of Andres throughout the proceedings and sought custody of Adam and Adrian through a petition filed on April 22, 2005, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. At the conclusion of a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 on May 12, 2005, the trial court denied the section 388 petition and terminated the parental rights of the mother and father. The grandmother, Rosario G., and father, Vincent J., both appeal from the orders entered on May 12, 2005. Vincent earlier appealed unsuccessfully from the denial of his parental rights to Alejandro.

The children were taken into protective custody in November 2002, shortly after Adam G. was born a month premature with a positive toxin screen for methamphetamines. Andres, age 2, was also taken into custody following a series of reports of neglect and verbal and physical abuse. Both children were initially placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother, but the newborn, Adam G., experienced breathing problems, and after only a few days in her care, he was transferred at her request to a medically fragile child shelter home.

According to the detention and jurisdictional reports, both parents had an extensive history of substance abuse and the mother had tested positive for methamphetamines at four prenatal appointments. The couple had been referred to the Department of Social Services on seven occasions. The report recounted detailed evidence of general neglect and physical abuse of Andres. For example, the mother was observed yelling at the child and pulling his hair. Andres displayed signs of emotional trauma and withdrawal.

At the jurisdictional hearing on December 18, 2002, the court sustained the petition and committed the children to the care of the Human Services Agency. The court approved a case plan contemplating reunification with the parents and allowed them the opportunity to visit the children under the supervision of the Agency. Andres remained with the maternal grandmother and Adam remained in a medically fragile child shelter home.

During the next year, the court held a six-month review hearing and two interim review hearings before and after this hearing. The reports submitted for these hearings documented the parents' failure to comply regularly with drug testing requirements and disclosed positive test results for methamphetamines on several occasions when they did submit to testing. Both parents failed to participate in referrals for drug treatment and counseling. The court continued reunification services for the parents at the six-month review hearing, but the mother's visitation rights were later suspended on September 22, 2003.

In August of 2003, the mother gave birth to a third child, Adrian, who was six weeks premature and also tested positive for methamphetamines. The Agency took the child into protective custody and filed a juvenile dependency petition. In November 2003, the child was placed in the same medically fragile child foster home as Adam. The foster parents expressed an interest in adopting both boys. In a series of hearings on the dependency petition, the court sustained the allegations of the dependency petition, denied reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, and set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, on December 2, 2003.

The maternal grandmother and her husband initially told social workers that they were not interested in long-term placement, but they soon changed their mind. The interim review report for March 18, 2003, disclosed that the Agency had made a referral to the â€