In re Christian A.

Filed 10/27/06 In re Christian A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Brandy S. (Mother) appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her four-year-old son, Christian A. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

On January 21, 2005, police responded to a request to investigate a group of individuals sleeping outside of a church. Upon arrival, officers observed Mother and her then two-year-old son, Christian, along with four other adults, sleeping under blankets and sleeping bags. Mother was arrested pursuant to an active warrant for petty theft and also for child endangerment. Christian was detained by the San Bernardino County Department of Children’s Services (DCS).

When interviewed by DCS, Mother stated that she resided with her grandmother, and admitted she had no employment. Though she denied abusing drugs, Mother was observed with several sores on her arms and appeared unkempt. Mother stated the whereabouts of Christian’s father were unknown.

On January 24, 2005, DCS filed a section 300 petition on behalf on the child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).^[1]

At the detention hearing, the court detained Christian in a confidential foster home and provided Mother with supervised visits. Upon the court’s inquiry of Native American ancestry, Mother replied in the negative.

In a jurisdictional/dispositional report, DCS recommended that the allegations in the petition as amended be found true and that Mother be provided with reunification services. Mother indicated that she slept with her friends outside the church to give them assistance, as they were sick and homeless; sleeping outside was not something she normally did. She noted that she had been clean and sober for the previous four years. On February 14, 2005, Mother had undergone a drug test; the results were negative. She explained that the sores on her arms were related to a childhood medical condition. However, she failed to drug test numerous times thereafter, becoming defiant and argumentative when asked to test. In addition, she had left her grandmother’s home on or about March 10, 2005, stating she did not want people telling her what to do, and her whereabouts became unknown.

On February 9, 2005, Mother and the maternal grandparents had a supervised visit with Christian. Christian was very excited and happy during the visit and spent most of the time close to Mother. Mother and the maternal grandparents showed deep love for the child, and it was evident that Christian was very bonded to them. Christian appeared to be traumatized upon leaving his family and cried all the way back to his placement while repeating his mother’s name.

Following the visit, Christian was removed from foster care and placed with his maternal grandfather and stepgrandmother. Mother had failed to visit her son on March 15, 2005, and had failed to make contact with her son since leaving her grandmother’s home.

At the March 21, 2005, contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found the allegations in the petition as amended true. Christian was declared a dependent of the court and maintained in his relative placement. Mother was provided with reunification services and ordered to participate. She was also ordered to drug test that day. Mother’s case plan required her to participate in and complete general counseling, a parenting education program, substance abuse counseling, an outpatient substance abuse program and a 12-step program and to randomly drug test.

On April 14, 2005, the social worker requested permission to initiate the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process in the State of Louisiana for the maternal grandfather stepgrandmother, as they were planning on moving there following the close of escrow on their home in Fallbrook, California. The social worker noted that Christian had resided in their home since February 17, 2005, and was bonded to them. Permission was granted, and ICPC was initiated on June 6, 2005.

As of April 14, 2005, Mother still had not contacted DCS to arrange a visit with her son; she had also failed to drug test as ordered by the court on March 21 and had failed to enroll in a drug treatment program. When the social worker contacted the maternal grandmother concerning Mother’s whereabouts, the maternal grandmother reported that she had no idea where Mother was; Mother had stated that she did not want to be bothered and that the family should stop looking for her.

On September 2, 2005, DCS informed the court of its efforts to locate Christian and the maternal grandfather and stepgrandmother following the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. The social worker eventually received a call from the maternal grandfather stating they were all well and had relocated to Baton Rouge.

DCS filed a section 387 petition on September 9, 2005, regarding Christian with allegations of child abuse by the maternal grandparents. The social worker was notified on September 6, 2005, that the maternal grandfather had transported Christian 80 miles on the back of his motorcycle and had abandoned him at a friend’s home. Christian was observed with several bruises on the back of his legs, thighs, and buttocks consistent with handprints. The friend was concerned about the safety of the child in the maternal grandfather’s home. The social worker picked up Christian the following day from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Christian confirmed the child abuse allegations.

At the detention hearing on the section 387 petition, Christian was removed from the grandparents’ home and placed in a confidential foster home. The social worker recommended that the allegations in the section 387 petition be found true based on the numerous statements of physical abuse, general neglect, and caretaker incapacity made by friends of the maternal grandparents and the lack of interest by the maternal grandparents in having Christian back in their home. The social worker also recommended that no services be provided to the maternal grandparents. The allegations in the section 387 petition were later found true, and the maternal grandparents were not provided with services.

DCS repeatedly recommended terminating Mother’s reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother had not contacted her son until he was removed from the care of his grandparents. She explained that she had not contacted DCS or her son because she was working in Las Vegas. She also stated because she was out of state, she had not initiated any component of her case plan. Mother’s mother asserted that Mother was believed to be residing with her boyfriend and that they were homeless. The maternal grandmother also reported that Mother cared more about her boyfriend than her child and that she had never been a good mother to Christian. Mother had been arrested in May 2005 for selling liquor to a minor and missed her court date. A bench warrant was issued for her arrest, and her probation was revoked.

Mother had failed to drug test as ordered by the court. She had also failed to enroll in a substance abuse program or begin any component of her case plan. The social worker opined Mother had no intention of reunifying with her child, and her lack of participation in her case plan did not warrant continued services.

At a supervised visit in September 2005, Mother appeared to be “blurry eyed” and violently shook Christian by his shoulder when he called her “Brandy” instead of “mommy.” Christian was upset following this visit. Subsequent visits between Mother and her son did not go well either; Christian did not want to visit his Mother and was upset when Mother informed him he would be going home with her. On December 6, 2005, the court terminated Mother’s visits with Christian due to the visits being detrimental to him and not in his best interests.

Meanwhile, Christian was meeting his developmental milestones. He was a very bright, active, good natured, cooperative child. He experienced setbacks, however, following telephone calls from Mother. Christian was placed with a family friend in Fallbrook, California, and was adjusting well. He was bonded with the family. The family indicated their desire to adopt him. Mother approved of this home and was grateful her son was in a safe and loving home.

On December 27, 2005, the court terminated Mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother was advised of her writ rights.

In a section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended terminating parental rights. Christian’s prospective adoptive parents continued to meet his physical, emotional, social, educational, and medical needs. Christian was very bonded to his prospective adoptive parents and the adoptive parents had expressed a strong desire to provide for and meet Christian’s needs on a permanent basis.

On May 4, 2006, Mother requested the court to appoint her new counsel due to the deterioration of the attorney-client relationship. Following a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, Mother’s request was granted, and the matter was continued.

At the May 31, 2006, contested section 366.26 hearing, Mother was present and did not testify. The court received the social worker’s reports into evidence and, finding the child 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:

RAMIREZ

P.J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

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