legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Danielle L.

In re Danielle L.
02:17:2007

In re Danielle L


In re Danielle L.


Filed 1/10/07 In re Danielle L. CA1/5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION FIVE


In re DANIELLE L. et al., Persons Coming


Under the Juvenile Court Law.


CONTRA COSTA COUNTYBUREAU OF


CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,




Plaintiff and Respondent, A112717



v. (ContraCostaCounty


Super. Ct. Nos. J02-02506,



ANDREA D., J02-02507, J04-01156)



Defendant and Appellant.


_______________________________________/


Andrea D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to her daughters Danielle, Cassidy, and Samantha. She contends the order must be reversed because (1) the court's conclusion under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) that the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship with her is not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion, (2) the court misinterpreted section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(A) when ruling the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship, (3) the court abused its discretion by not considering the children's wishes before terminating her parental rights, (4) the court's conclusion that the children were adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence, (5) the court abused its discretion when it ordered adoption rather than legal guardianship as the permanent plan, and (6) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reject these arguments and affirm the order terminating parental rights.



I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


In December 2002, appellant gave birth to a daughter, Cassidy. When a blood test administered after Cassidy tested positive at birth for methamphetamine/amphetamine, separate petitions were filed alleging that Cassidy and her older sister Danielle, who was born in July 2001, were dependent children within the meaning of section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The court detained both children and placed them in the custody of Russ L., their father. Appellant pleaded no contest to the petition at a jurisdictional hearing conducted in January 2003.



About a week later, supplemental petitions were filed in both cases alleging that Russ L. had tested positive for methamphetamine. The court detained Danielle and Cassidy and placed them with the their paternal grandmother. Russ L. pleaded no contest to the supplemental petitions at a jurisdictional hearing conducted in February 2003.


A dispositional hearing was set for April 2003. The report for that hearing showed appellant and Russ L. had many challenges before them. Both had extensive criminal histories, appellant having been charged with possession of controlled substances, welfare fraud, perjury, and embezzlement. Russ L.'s record was also extentive; he had been charged with possessing a dangerous weapon, possessing controlled substances, receiving stolen property, vehicle theft, and being under the influence of controlled substances. In addition, appellant had a long history of drug abuse. Indeed, appellant admitted that she â€





Description Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights as to her daughters. Appellant contends the order must be reversed because (1) the court's conclusion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) that the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship with her is not supported by substantial evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion, (2) the court misinterpreted section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(A) when ruling the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship, (3) the court abused its discretion by not considering the children's wishes before terminating her parental rights, (4) the court's conclusion that the children were adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence, (5) the court abused its discretion when it ordered adoption rather than legal guardianship as the permanent plan, and (6) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Court reject these arguments and affirm the order terminating parental rights.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale