In re Brittany G

Filed 3/29/06 In re Brittany G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Anna L. Ollinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Liana Serobian, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Valerie G. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her children Brittany G., Briana S., John G., Brenda L., and Joseph G.[1] She contends there was insufficient evidence that the four oldest children were adoptable, and that the juvenile court erred in finding the parental relationship exception set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply.[2] We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2004, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took Brittany, Briana, John, and Brenda into protective custody and filed a petition under section 300 after Joseph tested positive for amphetamines at birth. Brittany was almost nine years old, Briana was almost seven, John was five, and Brenda was one and a half years old at that time. For the previous three or four months, the children and mother had been living with their great uncle, his wife and son, and their great-grandmother in a two bedroom apartment. Before then, they lived with other relatives off and on.

After initially denying any recent drug use, mother eventually admitted that she used methamphetamine occasionally. She told the DCFS social worker that she started using it when she was 25 (she was 31 at the time of the interview). She said she typically used it about five times per year, although she admitted she had used it about six times while she was pregnant with Joseph. She ultimately pleaded no contest to an amended petition that alleged two counts under section 300, subdivision (b), related to her drug use.

In October 2004, the juvenile court sustained those two counts and ordered mother to attend a program of drug rehabilitation with random testing, parent education, and individual counseling. The court also ordered monitored visitation, and gave DCFS the discretion to liberalize the visitation after mother had 10 clean drug tests.

The four oldest children were placed together with one foster family, and Joseph was placed with a different foster family. Although mother consistently visited the children twice a week, monitored by the foster family agency, her compliance with her case plan was sporadic. After testing negative for drugs three times in the first month after the October 12, 2004 disposition hearing, she then missed several drug counseling sessions and tested positive for amphetamines on November 29, 2004. She missed six drug tests, and ultimately abandoned her drug counseling program in January 2005; she also was terminated from her parenting program for lack of attendance and non-participation. On March 2, 2005, mother re-enrolled in a drug counseling program. Nevertheless, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services on March 29, 2005, finding that mother had not made any significant progress in resolving the problems that caused the removal of the children from her care. The court set a permanent plan hearing for July 26, 2005.

On July 25, 2005, mother filed a section 388 petition, asking the court to reinstate family reunification services or place the children with her or with their maternal great-grandmother. Mother alleged that she was participating in all court ordered programs and was consistently visiting the children. She also alleged that the two oldest children wanted to live with her. The juvenile court denied the petition.

In a report submitted for the permanent plan hearing, DCFS reported that mother tested positive for amphetamines on June 6, 2005. DCFS also reported on the health and development of the children. It noted that all of the children were in good health, although Briana has conditions known as oculocutaneous albinism (little or no pigment in the eyes, skin, and hair) and nystagmus (involuntary eye movements). None of the four oldest children had any developmental delays, but the youngest, Joseph (11 months old), was found to be somewhat delayed in fine motor, social, and communications skills. Brittany and John were promoted to fifth and first grade, respectively. Although Briana was held back and will repeat first grade, her teacher reported that she showed much improvement and was a wonderful student. DCFS also reported that the three oldest children successfully completed individual therapy, and all of the children appeared to be well adjusted and were thriving in their placements.

The DCFS report also included information about mother's visits with the children. DCSF reported that mother had maintained regular monitored visitation with the children, that the visits had gone well with no reported problems, and that the children said they enjoy the visits. DCFS also noted that mother usually was accompanied by the maternal great-grandmother, and occasionally by the maternal great-aunt, and that mother had difficulty handling all five children when she was alone.

Further details about the health and development of the children, their bonds with their foster families and mother, and mother's visits were provided in reports, attached as exhibits to the DCFS report, from Serenity Infant Care Homes, Inc., the foster family agency that monitored the children's progress and acted as the monitor for mother's visits with the children. Those reports noted that all of the children appear to be developing normally physically and intellectually, and that all have formed strong attachments to their foster families. The reports also noted that the children also have strong bonds with their birth family, and that mother is very involved with and attentive to the children during her visits.

Finally, DCFS reported that the foster parents wanted to adopt the children and were not interested in legal guardianship, and that the adoption home studies were approved. DCFS concluded that it was highly likely that all of the children would be adopted. It recommended adoption as the permanent plan and recommended that visitation with mother be gradually phased out, because continued weekly visits would not be in the children's best interest. In the Serenity reports, the Serenity social worker assigned to the children noted that she â€