In re Chris S.

Filed 5/17/06  In re Chris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.  Deborah A. Daniel, Judge.  Affirmed.

            ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Deborah A. Daniel, Judge.  Petition denied.

            Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Richard Pfeiffer for Defendant and Appellant.

            Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, Dawn Stafford and Julie J. Surber, Deputies County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Mary Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

1.  Introduction^[1]

            Two children are the subject of this dependency appeal, Chris S., born in January 2001, and Robert S., born in September 1995.  Their mother, Alice C., appeals from the order made under section 366.26 terminating her parental rights.  She challenges the juvenile court's adoptability finding.

            In addition to the appeal, the minors, joined by mother, have filed a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus, also challenging the adoptability finding.  We deny the motion to consolidate the appeal and the writ petition but we consider the two cases together in this opinion.

            Our review of the record discloses clear and convincing evidence of adoptability.  We affirm the judgment and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

2.  Factual and Procedural Background

            Both boys were detained in December 2003 after the family, including two other children not the subject of this appeal, were discovered living in an abandoned building.  Mother admitted they had been homeless for two months.  The children were poorly dressed, dirty, and hungry.  Drug paraphernalia was found in the same location.  The family had no source of income and mother was pregnant.

            The jurisdiction/disposition report contained the information that, since 2001, mother had nine previous referrals of neglect to the Department of Children's Services (DCS).  Mother's substance abuse problem affected her parenting ability.  Mother had multiple drug arrests since 1998 and an outstanding warrant for theft of personal property.  The boys had different fathers who were brothers.  Robert's father was dead.  Chris's father was Robert's uncle.^[2]  Father also had a drug problem and drug-related arrests.  Father was in jail.

            After mediation, the parties stipulated to jurisdiction and the court declared the boys dependents of the court.

            At the six-month review hearing, DCS recommended a permanent plan of adoption.  Mother's drug-exposed baby had been born and removed from her custody.  Father was incarcerated until at least July 2005.  Mother was still homeless and using drugs.  Parents had made no progress on their case plans.  The children were struggling in foster care.  Robert, almost nine years old, was just learning to read and write.  He had behavior problems and used profanity.  At one point, the foster parents asked for his placement to be changed but they agreed to continue caring for him.  Chris, about three and a half years old, had trouble speaking clearly and was physically aggressive, kicking and hitting.  He preferred to eat off the floor.  The children â€