In re A.W.

Filed 5/26/06  In re A.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Sacramento)

----

     J.B. (appellant), the mother of A.W. and D.C. (the minors), appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating her parental rights as to A.W. and placing D.C. in guardianship.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified.)  Appellant raises issues relating to the 18-month review hearing, contends the evidence does not support the court's finding that there was no exception to  the preference for adoption of A.W., and argues the court improperly delegated to D.C.'s guardian the authority to determine whether visitation would occur.  We shall affirm the orders.

FACTS

     The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) detained four-month-old A.W. and six-year-old D.C. in November 2003, after an  incident in which T.W., appellant's boyfriend and A.W.'s father, hit and injured D.C.  T.W. had a history of physical violence against D.C.  Appellant insisted that the  blow was accidental.  She  and T.W. were referred to services shortly after the minors were  detained. 

     The report prepared for the jurisdictional hearing noted that  appellant and T.W. minimized the incident and past violence.  D.C. reported ongoing domestic violence in the home perpetrated by  T.W.  When arrested for the current incident, T.W. kicked at the window in the patrol car until it shattered.  Appellant had participated in a family maintenance program to address T.W.'s violence against D.C. several months before the current incident.  The social worker recommended out-of-home placement for the minors, with services including counseling and parenting for appellant and  reassessment for return in 90 days. 

     At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court sustained the petition and ordered participation in a service plan. 

     A progress report of April 2004 stated that appellant was in parenting classes and had recently begun counseling.  Visitation was going well, and the social worker contemplated a  transition to unsupervised visits. 

     The six-month review report indicated that visits continued to  go well and that unsupervised visits were authorized.  D.C. was presenting behavioral problems in foster care, and his therapist intended to begin specialized parenting with appellant.  Appellant was in therapy but had lost her residence and was referred for emergency housing.  Although she benefited from her parenting class, appellant missed a session and did not complete the class. 

     At the review hearing in June 2004, the court ordered further services for appellant and terminated T.W.'s services. 

     The December 2004 report for the 12-month review hearing recommended termination of appellant's services.  Supervised visitation, which had been reinstated after appellant allowed T.W. to have contact with the minors, had been sporadic over the last two months.  D.C.'s behavior stabilized with structure and discipline in a new foster home, although it deteriorated after visits with appellant.  D.C. was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), exacerbated by appellant's failure to validate that he had been abused.  Appellant's therapy had been inconsistent due to problems with the provider, but she had completed her parenting requirement. 

     At the hearing, the parties stipulated to six more months of services. 

     The May 2005 report for the 18-month review hearing addressed D.C.'s current functioning.  His behavioral problems continued at  school, affecting his ability to learn, and his psychological assessment concluded it was possible that D.C. was subjected to multiple instances of abuse.  D.C. said he hit others to protect himself.  At a team meeting attended by appellant, D.C.'s therapist observed that appellant was  in denial about the extent of D.C.'s abuse and was not taking responsibility for failing to protect him.  The therapist further reported that D.C. admitted he did not always tell the truth because he feared getting in trouble with appellant if he did.  During visits, D.C. appeared to have conflicting feelings about appellant, who seemed unable to determine D.C.'s needs and meet them.  Appellant demonstrated no overt affection for  either minor during visits.  She appeared to distance herself emotionally from D.C. when he misbehaved. 

     The review report also addressed appellant's progress.  She claimed to be living with the maternal grandmother, but there were indications that she was staying at the same address as  T.W., despite her denial of a continuing relationship with him.  Appellant completed her series of counseling sessions.  She showed  success in some areas but minimal progress in  changing her lifestyle and her choice of co-dependency relating to T.W., which placed her family at risk.  The therapist opined that appellant had  the ability to change her emotions and thought patterns and to improve her empathy for her children, but it was uncertain if she would do so.  The therapist ended with the observation that appellant â€