In re Derrick J.
Filed 6/20/06 In re Derrick J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re DERRICK J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHANIE J., Defendant and Appellant. | E040079 (Super.Ct.No. J107600) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. William A. Anderson, Jr., Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
Stephanie J. (mother), the mother of Derrick J. (child) who is presently two years old, appeals from orders of the dependency court terminating her parental rights. Neither the father of the child nor an older half sibling is a party to this appeal.
The child was born prematurely. Mother and child both tested positive for amphetamines. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine one time, the day before the birth of the child. Mother was then on summary probation for an assault charge and driving under the influence. She stated that she had considered aborting the child.
The Department of Public Social Services filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g)[1] on behalf of the child and his older half sibling.
A combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on May 27, 2004. Mother was present, but father's whereabouts were then unknown. The court sustained the petition, declared the child a dependent of the court, took custody from mother and ordered reunification services. The court set a six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
The six-month review hearing was held on December 16, 2004. The court ordered further reunification services and continued the case for a 12-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)
The 12-month review hearing was held on July 27, 2005. Mother was not present. The court found mother's progress on the reunification plan was not satisfactory. The court terminated reunification services and set the case for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) The court ordered that mother be noticed of her right to seek writ review of the court's orders and findings, and notice was mailed to her address of record. Mother did not seek writ review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a).)
The court conducted the contested selection and implementation hearing on March 7, 2006. Mother was present in custody. She had been in custody since August 5, 2005. She had been sentenced to state prison on a felony and expected to be incarcerated for two years. Mother had not visited with the child while in custody; however, she had not visited very much when out of custody. The child had never lived with her and did not recognize her as his mother. The child's foster family wanted to adopt him.
The court terminated mother's and father's parental rights. It found the child adoptable and that adoption was the most appropriate plan. None of the exceptions to adoption existed.
Mother has appealed, and at her request we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under 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 setting forth a statement of the case and a statement of facts, suggesting possible issues on appeal and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Attorneys.
