In re Arlene

Filed 2/15/06 In re Arlene C. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Fred Klink, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

K.C. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Arlene C. She contends the order must be reversed because (1) the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to facilitate visitation with Arlene during the three to six months before her parental rights were terminated; and (2) the juvenile court denied her request for evidence she needed to demonstrate DCFS's failure, which denied her an opportunity to establish the parental relationship exception set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A).[1] We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

At the time Arlene was born, in April 2003, K.C. had just turned 15 years old. A few months earlier, K.C. had been arrested for grand theft and was declared a ward of the juvenile court under section 602. She was placed in a group home on juvenile probation, and gave birth to Arlene while residing at that group home. Because she had extreme difficulty following the program rules, she was given a psychological evaluation. That evaluation revealed that her IQ was 46, which was within the mild mental retardation range.

Because the group home did not have the resources to deal with K.C.'s mental and behavioral issues, she was discharged from the group home and placed with her grandmother,[2] Arlene's maternal great-grandmother (Ms. W.), to begin the assessment process by the Regional Center. She was ordered to remain at home with Ms. W., but if she did leave her home without permission, she was to leave Arlene with Ms. W. In May 2003, a dependency case was opened on K.C. after Ms. W. called DCFS to report that K.C. kept leaving her home, with Arlene, for long periods of time. That case was closed in August 2003.

On September 10, 2003, K.C., who once again left home without permission, witnessed a drive-by shooting. Her probation officer went to Ms. W.'s home on September 12, 2003, to take K.C. into custody and place her in juvenile hall because she was placing herself in dangerous situations. K.C. avoided the probation officer by jumping out of a second floor window, leaving Arlene behind. The probation officer contacted DCFS concerning Arlene. DCFS detained Arlene and filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), alleging two counts based upon K.C.'s abandonment of Arlene.[3] The juvenile court ordered Arlene detained in shelter care.

K.C.'s whereabouts were unknown until October 16, 2003. At that time, she was apprehended and, through the probation department, was placed in a temporary foster home while the Regional Center searched for an appropriate foster care program. Two weeks later, K.C. went AWOL from that placement. She remained at large for a month. In November 2003, she was arrested and placed in juvenile hall. In the meantime, the juvenile court in this case sustained the amended petition, ordered family reunification services for K.C., and ordered Arlene placed with her paternal grandparents.[4]

In the first seven months after Arlene was detained, K.C. had three visits with her. K.C.'s whereabouts were known for five of those seven months. DCFS claimed that the lack of visitation was due to K.C.'s behavioral problems, which caused her to be transferred between several juvenile facilities and limited DCFS's ability to arrange visits. K.C. also had not been able to participate in court-ordered programs because of her behavioral problems. At the six month review hearing, in June 2004, the juvenile court found that reasonable services had not been provided to K.C., and ordered six more months of family reunification services.

A few days after the six month review hearing, K.C. was placed in a group home. She went AWOL from that group home 12 days later. She remained AWOL through the 12 month review hearing. She had no contact with DCFS or Arlene during those six months. The juvenile court terminated family reunification services on December 3, 2004, and set a section 366.26 hearing. At that point, K.C.'s whereabouts had been unknown for eight of the 14 months since Arlene's detention.

At some point after reunification services were terminated, K.C. was apprehended and placed in juvenile hall and, later, a group home. There is a dispute regarding when K.C.'s whereabouts became known. According to a report filed by DCFS, it first learned of K.C.'s whereabouts on April 12, 2005. It appears from that report that K.C. was apprehended in late March 2005.[5] According to K.C.'s counsel, however, DCFS knew of K.C.'s whereabouts in January 2005: At a continued section 366.26 hearing in late June 2005, counsel stated to the juvenile court that K.C. told her that she had been in a placement through probation for six months and had been calling the social worker to arrange visitation with Arlene, but that the social worker told her that she was not allowed any visitation. Counsel asked the court for the DCFS case activity logs (also called â€