In re Cortney M.

Filed 9/7/06 In re Cortney M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Lassen)

----

Patricia M., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated section references that follow are to this code.) Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance. We affirm the orders.

FACTS

The newborn minor was removed from appellant's custody in June 2004 based on allegations of substance abuse and appellant's neglect of her other four children who were now pending adoption. The court sustained the allegations and in December 2004, ordered family reunification.

Appellant participated in services, completed plan elements and progressed to unsupervised visits. However, appellant had failed to secure stable housing, had an unapproved person living in the home, took the minor out of the county without permission, and left the minor with inappropriate caretakers during unsupervised overnight visits while she went out. Thereafter, the social worker required supervised visitation. The social worker recommended termination of services because appellant's behavior was unchanged despite 12 months of services and her home was unstable. Appellant moved to Shasta County in July 2005, and was working. The court terminated reunification services in August 2005.

The social worker's report for the section 366.26 hearing stated appellant had two supervised visits a month. Because visits had become stressful for the minor, the paternal grandfather attended visits. At one visit, appellant became upset because she believed the minor was paying more attention to the paternal grandfather than to her and left the visit. When appellant returned, the social worker instructed her on how to interact with the minor. Prior to the next visit, appellant tried to negotiate a visit without the paternal grandfather and when she was unsuccessful, became angry and accusatory. The report concluded that appellant said she was changing but continued to make poor decisions and still needed instruction on interaction with the minor.

The assessment by the state Department of Social Services concluded that termination of parental rights was not detrimental to the minor. The assessment noted that visits continue to be somewhat stressful for the minor.

At the section 366.26 hearing in January 2006, there was testimony from several witnesses on the existence of circumstances that could render termination of parental rights detrimental to the minor. Appellant testified she currently had a two-bedroom apartment and was on SSI. After the close of testimony, appellant's counsel made an oral notice of motion for a petition for modification to consider reopening services to appellant based upon the fact that she now has stable housing and had eliminated the problem that was the concern at the 12-month review hearing. Counsel recognized there was inadequate notice to the parties and his intent was to follow with a written motion and set it for hearing, noting that a decision had to be made before parental rights were terminated or appellant would lack standing to bring the motion.

The court responded that one alternative available at the section 366.26 hearing was to identify adoption as the permanent plan and delay ordering termination of parental rights. After comments on the issue by other counsel, the court stated: â€