In re Andrew H.

Filed 9/29/06 In re Andrew H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. Deborah Daniel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maria F.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Celso H.

No appearance for Minors.

I. INTRODUCTION

Maria F. (mother) and Celso H. (father) appeal from the termination of their parental rights as to minors, Allen H. (born in 2003) and Andrew H. (born in 2001). We find no error, and we affirm.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (Department) took minors into protective custody in September 2004 and thereafter filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 300, subdivisions (a) through (c) and (g). The petitions alleged that mother had hit minors’ half siblings^[2] with a broom handle, causing scrapes and bruising; mother has a history of domestic violence and substance abuse; mother punished one of minors’ half siblings by depriving her of food and drink for at least three days; and mother was arrested for child endangerment and neglect.In the detention report, the Department stated that minors’ half siblings reported that mother and father fought “‘all the time’” and that mother used food deprivation for punishment. The report stated that father had been arrested for domestic violence in January, May, and July 2004; father has substance abuse and alcohol problems; and father had been arrested for driving under the influence in May 2003 and April 2004.

The juvenile court detained minors and allowed parents supervised visitation.

The jurisdictional and dispositional report stated that mother had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor child abuse and was given four years’ probation on conditions she serve 180 days in jail and complete a 52-week child endangerment class. Mother admitted using cocaine. Father denied current drug use, but admitted a problem with alcohol abuse. The report stated that minors were in good physical health and appeared to be meeting developmental milestones.

At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition as amended and found that minors came within section 300, subdivisions (a) through (c) and (g). The court ordered reunification services for parents.

Mother’s case plan included, among other things, general counseling, a domestic violence program, family counseling, a parenting program, a substance abuse outpatient program, and substance abuse testing. Father’s case plan included, among other things, general counseling, a domestic violence program, a substance abuse outpatient program, and substance abuse testing.

A review report stated that father had been incarcerated until December 2004. He tested positive for methamphetamine in one substance abuse test. Mother was held as an immigration detainee and then deported to Mexico, but she returned to the United States.

At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued minors as dependents of the court and ordered continued reunification services for parents.

In June 2005, minors were placed with a paternal uncle and his wife. The uncle and aunt were willing to adopt minors and had formed a reciprocal bond with them.

In a review report, the Department stated that mother and father were living together despite an active restraining order. They had changed their address several times, but had failed to notify the Department of the changes and missed several visits with minors. Father was arrested in September 2005 on outstanding warrants for spousal abuse, disturbing the peace, driving under the influence, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Parents began a parenting course but missed two sessions. They also attended two of 15 sessions of a reunification course that included counseling.

The juvenile court conducted a 12-month review hearing in November 2005, at which the court terminated reunification services and referred the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

The Department filed a report in March 2006 stating that minors remained in the home of their uncle and aunt, who wished to adopt them. Minors’ development was reported to be normal. Minors told the social worker they considered their uncle and aunt as their parents. The uncle and aunt stated they were willing to plan visits with minors’ half siblings after the adoption.

Mother and father filed pretrial memoranda arguing that the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights existed and requesting legal guardianship instead of adoption as a permanent plan for minors. At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found minors adoptable and terminated parental rights.

III. DISCUSSION

Mother and father have appealed, and at their requests, we appointed counsel to represent them. Both mother’s and father’s counsel filed briefs under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth statements of the case and facts and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.

We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but neither has not done so.

Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.IV. DISPOSITION

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI

J.

KING

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[2] Mother has four other children, minors’ half siblings, who were also named in the dependency petitions. However, the half siblings were eventually placed with their father and the proceedings regarding them were dismissed.