In re A.S.

Filed 9/29/06 In re A.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.

Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Nicole S. (Mother) appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her two-year-old daughter, A.S. We find no errors and affirm the judgment.

In September 2003, A.S. came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (DCS) when DCS responded to a call by the police to take custody of the child. Mother, who was then 17 years old, had been pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy for driving a vehicle with an expired license plate. Upon contact, the deputy discovered Mother was driving without a driver’s license and was under the influence. Mother admitted that she had used methamphetamine the prior day. A stash of marijuana was discovered in Mother’s bra. Contact with the juvenile probation department revealed Mother was a “[w]ell[-]known” habitual drug user and transient. Mother was arrested, and A.S. was taken into protective custody. On September 27, 2004, DCS filed a petition on behalf on the child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g)^[1] against Mother and the alleged father, Robert T.

At the September 28, 2004, detention hearing, Tyler R. (Father), who was then 22 years old, appeared and claimed to be A.S.’s father. The juvenile court ordered Father to submit to a paternity test. The court adopted the findings noted in the detention report and detained A.S. in a confidential foster home. The court also ordered one 1-hour visit weekly for Mother and Father with their daughter and requested Mother be given outpatient drug treatment referrals.

In an October 2004 jurisdictional/dispositional report, DCS recommended that the allegations in the petition be found true and that the parents be offered reunification services. DCS was assessing relatives for placement of A.S. The prognosis for the family was fair. Mother was incarcerated, and Father’s whereabouts were unknown.

At the November 9, 2004, dispositional/jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and declared A.S. a dependent child of the court. Father was found to be A.S.’s father. The court ordered reunification services to Mother and ordered her to participate. In addition, the court ordered DCS to submit an informational packet within 30 days regarding the status of relative placement for A.S. and authorized DCS to follow through with that placement by packet.

On January 27, 2005, the court held a non-appearance review to consider the relative placement. The court ordered A.S. be placed with her maternal first cousin. The court also ordered weekly supervised visitation between A.S. and her parents.

In a six-month status review report, the social worker recommended the parents receive an additional six months of services. This decision was based on the fact that the relative caretakers had arranged to provide transportation for Mother to attend her substance abuse program, and Father had been regularly participating in the In-Roads drug program at Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center (Glen Helen).

It was also reported that Mother had failed to regularly participate in and/or complete any portion of her court-ordered service plan. She had been terminated from her parenting class on two occasions for nonattendance. She had enrolled in an inpatient drug program but failed to complete one week before she left the program. She had continued to minimize her substance abuse problem. Father had remained incarcerated for charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than himself and possession of drugs and was expected to be released in June 2005.

A.S.’s relative caretakers had expressed their desire to adopt A.S. should reunification fail. Mother had been compliant with visitation but did not spend the full hour allotted to her with her daughter.

On May 5, 2006, DCS filed a section 342 subsequent petition to add allegations against Father due to his criminal background and substance abuse history. The court found substantial change in the allegations as to Father. On May 31, 2005, the court found the allegations in the subsequent petition true and formally removed A.S. from Father’s custody.

By May 27, 2005, Mother had been incarcerated on a warrant issued by the probation department. In addition, the relative caretakers had indicated that they might be moving out of San Bernardino County; therefore there were current placement issues. Father’s brother had been assessed as a possible relative caretaker and was found to be suitable. However, due to the fact that Father was planning to live in his brother’s house following his release from jail, the placement was deemed inappropriate.

On August 11, 2005, DCS filed a section 387 supplemental petition. The petition alleged the relative caretaker was no longer able to care for A.S. due to hardship. Mother could not be located, so DCS initiated an absent-parent search. DCS recommended that A.S. be placed in a confidential home. The court adopted DCS’s recommendation, placed A.S. in a confidential foster home, and ordered supervised visitation between A.S. and her parents.

In a jurisdictional/dispositional report filed August 31, 2005, the social worker noted Mother had been released from juvenile hall on July 24, 2005. Since that time, she had had no contact with the social worker either by telephone or in person. Though she had been given numerous referrals, Mother had failed to participate in any aspect of her service plan. She had also failed to visit with her child within the previous three to four months. She failed to take an interest in the child or the child’s well-being and appeared to be unmotivated to reunify with her child. Father lacked any relationship with A.S. due to his in-custody time and appeared to be too immature to assume the role as a caregiver. The social worker sought permission to initiate an ICPC (Interstate Compact for Placement of Children) evaluation of A.S.’s maternal great-uncle and his wife, who resided in West Virginia.

A.S. was noted to have some developmental delays due to prenatal substance abuse, neglect, or genetic makeup. She was unmotivated to walk and had been referred to the Inland Regional Center’s Early Start program. She had a difficult time adjusting to the foster parents upon her removal from her relative caretakers.

Mother failed to appear for the September 2, 2005, court hearing, and the court continued the matter until September 23, 2005, so DCS could complete the absent-parent search.

On or about September 16, 2005, Mother had begun contacting the social worker and stated she was living with relatives in Phelan, California. She indicated that she had “messed up but want[ed] to get her child back.”

At the September 23, 2005, hearing, the court continued A.S. a dependent child of the court and found that “the minor’s special needs require more restrictive level of placement in foster care.” The court found the allegations in the section 387 supplemental petition true. In addition, the court found the parents had failed to make substantive progress in their court-ordered treatment plans.

By November 2005, the relative caretaker approval through ICPC was still pending, and the social worker recommended continuing the parents’ services, despite the parents’ complete lack of participation in their case plans. The maternal great-uncle had had a visit with A.S., and the visit went fairly well. A.S. was developing well and appeared to be meeting her developmental milestones. She was attached to her current caretaker and appeared distraught at and after parental visits.

By November 23, 2005, the social worker recommended terminating the parents’ reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Neither parent had made significant progress in their case plans, despite being offered numerous referrals. Mother failed to follow through with her substance abuse program, and Father had tested positive for methamphetamine.

The home assessment of the relative caretakers in West Virginia had been completed, and fingerprint results were pending.

At the November 30, 2005, 12-month review hearing, the court found that both parents had failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in their court-ordered treatment plans. The court then terminated the parents’ reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court authorized the social worker to place A.S. with any approved relative, including an out-of-state relative provided an ICPC evaluation was favorable.

At a March 3, 2006, nonappearance review hearing, the court was notified that the great-uncle in West Virginia was denied approval due to his background and/or adoption history. The social worker began a relative placement assessment of the paternal grandmother. A.S.’s current caretaker was eager to adopt should no suitable relative caretaker be found.

On April 12, 2006, the social worker recommended A.S.’s current foster family be considered for adoptive placement. A.S.’s caretaker reported that she loved A.S. and wanted to provide her with a permanent home. A.S. had adjusted well into this family, and was attached to the foster mother.

At the May 22, 2006, section 366.26 hearing, Mother was present, but Father was not. Mother did not testify but objected to the termination of parental rights. The court received the social worker’s reports into evidence. Following argument, the court, finding the children adoptable, terminated parental rights.

Mother appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Appellate counsel submitted a brief 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have invited Mother to file a supplemental brief, and she 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.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P.J.

KING

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.

^[1] All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.