In re C.O.
Filed 7/19/06 In re C.O. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re C. O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBBIE B., Defendant and Appellant. | F049255
(Super. Ct. No. JD096348)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Debbie B. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter, C.O.[1] Appellant contends the court erred by finding her daughter was adoptable and by not finding that termination would be detrimental to her. On review, we disagree and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Two-and-a-half-year-old C.O. and her two siblings came to the attention of respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (the department) in early 2002 due to appellant's methamphetamine abuse and anger management issues as well as domestic violence in the family home. In March 2002, the Kern County Superior Court adjudged C.O. and the others dependent children and removed them from appellant's custody. A year later, the court terminated reunification efforts for appellant who made minimal progress in court-ordered services. The court also set the first of three section 366.26 hearings to select and implement a permanent plan for C.O.
As of the first section 366.26 hearing in July 2003, C.O. was living with her paternal grandparents. The department had placed her in their care in December 2002. Before then, C.O. had experienced four other placements. First, there was an emergency placement upon her detention, followed by foster care. Then, in the spring of 2002, the court placed C.O. with her father subject to family maintenance services. However, his methamphetamine abuse led to C.O.'s removal in September 2002. The department in turn placed C.O. with her maternal grandmother who had been caregiver for C.O.'s older sister for some time.[2] After three months, the department moved C.O. to the home of her paternal grandparents because her maternal grandmother could not control her behavior and did not have sufficient room to meet C.O.'s needs.[3]
In the months leading up to the first section 366.26 hearing, the department assigned C.O.'s case, as well as her older sister's case, for a legal guardianship evaluation. Their respective grandmothers had previously stated each was interested in becoming a legal guardian to her granddaughter. However, less than a month before the hearing, when a social worker visited with each grandmother, the social worker learned each grandmother wished to adopt the granddaughter in her care. Each child appeared comfortable in her placement.
In particular, C.O., then four years old, appeared to be happy with her grandparents and when asked where she would live if she could choose, she said she would live â€
