In re Amy T.
Filed 6/13/06 In re Amy T. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Siskiyou)
| In re AMY T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SISKIYOU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARILYN T., Defendant and Appellant. | C049094 C050150
(Super. Ct. No. SCJVSQ015001902)
|
In this consolidated appeal, Marilyn T. (appellant), the mother of Amy, Becky, and Nicoles (the minors), appeals from orders of the juvenile court continuing the minors as dependent children in foster care and denying appellant's petition for modification, which had sought to overturn the court's jurisdictional findings. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
Appellant, proceeding in propria persona, makes numerous claims of error. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
On April 16, 2001, Siskiyou County Human Services filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the minors. That petition alleged appellant was incarcerated in county jail on a probation violation, leaving the minors without any provision for support. In September 2001, an amended petition was filed, alleging that appellant again was incarcerated, apparently as the result of a dispute with neighbors, and that appellant had used a chainsaw to trim a tree in her yard while two of the minors were in the tree.
In February 2002, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over the minors. Thereafter, the minors became dependents of the court. According to the social worker, the minors had suffered or were at risk of suffering serious physical harm, illness, or emotional damage due to the conduct of the appellant. Appellant received reunification services.
At a January 2003 hearing, the juvenile court ruled appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her petition for modification regarding whether her release from custody constituted a change in circumstances. The court also suggested appellant's request that its jurisdictional finding be set aside was beyond the purview of a petition for modification. In case no. C043154, this court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying in part the modification petition and remanded for further proceedings.
During the summer of 2003, the juvenile court conducted various hearings. On June 25, 2004, in case no. C044609, this court affirmed several juvenile court orders. In the meantime, the minors continued to live together in foster care. A February 2005 social worker's report recommended the permanent plan for the minors to continue to be a â€
