In re A.Z.

Filed 9/27/06 In re A.Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minor.

A.P. (mother), the mother of A.Z. (child), who is presently almost two years old, appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights. The child’s father is not a party to this appeal. The child has two half siblings who have been dependents of the court; however, their dependency case was terminated after the court ordered a long-term plan of guardianship with a maternal relative.

The child, then an infant, was taken into protective custody after her mother’s arrest and subsequent incarceration in state prison on a felony drug charge. Father had taken custody of the child and was having the child cared for by his sister and mother. He admitted that he was not capable of caring for the child and that he had been snorting heroin for 10 years. Mother also had a history of methamphetamine abuse. A petition was filed on the child’s behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g),^[1] on April 25, 2005.

The court conducted a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on May 26, 2005. The court sustained the petition and declared the child to be a ward of the court. Pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), the court denied reunification services to mother. Reunification services were ordered for father. The child was formally placed with the paternal aunt where she has continuously resided. The aunt wishes to adopt the child.

A six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) was held on November 28, 2005. Father had not made any progress on his reunification plan. The court terminated his reunification services and referred the case for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) Mother was present in court and was orally notified of her right to seek writ review of the court’s orders and findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a).) Mother did not seek writ review.

Mother was released from prison. She enrolled in and had completed some phases of a drug rehabilitation program, a parenting program and an anger management program. She was employed. On May 30, 2006, she filed a changed circumstances petition pursuant to section 388. The court summarily denied the petition without a hearing. The order denying it stated that it was not in the child’s best interest to change the existing orders.

The court conducted the selection and implementation hearing on June 1, 2006. The court found the child adoptable and terminated the parental rights of mother and father.

Mother has appealed, and at her request we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 a statement of the case, a summary of facts and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record. We provided mother with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.

We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ McKinster

Acting P.J.

We concur:

/s/ Gaut

J.

/s/ King

J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.

^[1] All further statutory references are to this code.