In re D.J.M.

Filed 7/31/06 In re D.J.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Sacramento)

----

C.G. (appellant), the mother of D.J.M. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile court's orders denying appellant's petition to modify the dispositional order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 395, further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in denying her petition. We disagree and shall affirm the order.

FACTS

When she was an infant, the minor was removed from appellant's custody in July 2004, based on allegations of appellant's substance abuse and failure to comply with a family maintenance agreement. At the time of the detention hearing, appellant was in custody on a federal parole hold.

The report for the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing stated appellant admitted that she had tested positive for cocaine while pregnant (with the minor) and that she had not completed family maintenance services. Appellant denied current substance abuse but stated that she was arrested on a violation of probation for having a positive test. The conditions of her probation included parenting and drug abuse treatment. Following appellant's release from custody in July 2004, she again began drug testing. In November 2004, the juvenile court adopted a reunification plan that required appellant to participate in drug abuse treatment and counseling for various issues, including anger management and domestic violence, parenting classes, and drug testing.

According to the six-month review report in February 2005, appellant was initially compliant with the plan and moved from supervised to unsupervised visitation with the minor. However, appellant failed to return the minor after a Thanksgiving visit and, following the minor's return to foster care by a family member, appellant had not seen the minor or requested visitation. Appellant also dropped out of services and did not contact the social worker after November 2004. The report recommended termination of services. At the review hearing, the juvenile court adopted the recommendation and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minor.

The May 2005 assessment for the section 366.26 hearing stated the minor remained in foster care and was healthy and was on track developmentally. The social worker proposed adoption by a relative of the minor. An addendum filed in July 2005 stated the minor's foster caretaker was willing to adopt her. Although the relative had been approved to adopt the minor, the social worker now recommended adoption by the current caretaker.

In August 2005, appellant filed a section 388 petition for modification seeking return of the minor or further services. The petition alleged appellant was in custody from November 2004 to May 2005 for violating her federal probation. Since her release, she had entered a 12-month residential treatment facility, was doing well in the program, and completed her parenting class.

At the hearing on the section 388 petition, appellant testified that her program included counseling and random testing, that she visited the minor twice a month and felt the minor knew her, and that, despite her substance abuse history, she did not feel she had a substance abuse problem. For this reason, she did not complete her earlier substance abuse programs and attended her current program to deal with other issues, although the program is designed to address substance abuse issues.

The family service worker testified that appellant's visits with the minor went well and the mother/child relationship seemed to be good. The minor separated easily at the end of visits but was fully engaged with appellant during visits.

The juvenile court noted that appellant previously absconded with the minor and continued to deny her substance abuse problems. The court denied the petition, concluding appellant was changing but had not established either that circumstances had changed or that the proposed order was in the minor's best interests.

DISCUSSION

A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.^[1] â€