In re D.R.
Filed 2/16/07 In re D.R. CA4/2
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re D.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DESIREE R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E040026
(Super.Ct.No. INJ016159)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.
Niccol Kording, underappointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, DeputyCounty Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
M. Elizabeth Handy,under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Appellant Desiree R.(mother) appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] order terminating parental rights to herdaughter, D. (born in October 2000) (the child). On appeal, mother arguesthat: 1) the juvenile court erred infailing to provide her with proper notice of her writ rights; 2) she was notprovided with reasonable reunification services; 3) the court abused itsdiscretion in denying her section 388 petition; 4) the court erred in failingto remove the child from placement with the paternal grandparents; and 5) thebeneficial parental relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A))applied. We affirm the order.[2]
FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2004, the Riverside County Department ofPublic Social Services (DPSS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of thechild, alleging that she came within section 300, subdivision (b) (failure toprotect). The petition alleged that, on June 17, 2004, a family court commissioner found that mother and father[3] wereunfit to provide a safe and stable home for the child. Mother suffered fromclinical depression, and father had been convicted of spousal battery/domestic violence inJanuary 2004. The detention report stated that mother had separated fromfather in January 2004 and that she currently lived with her boyfriend in hisgrandmother's home. Mother and father were in the process of completing theirdivorce and child custody agreement. The social worker interviewed mother andnoted that mother's speech was rapid and incoherent. Although mother deniedusing controlled substances, the social worker requested her to drug test. Mother told the social worker that she and father were unemployed.
The juvenile courtdetained the child and ordered supervised visitation for father as directed byDPSS, and supervised visitation for mother upon an assessment for anâ€
| Description | Appellant, mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order terminating parental rights to her daughter, (born in October 2000) (the child). On appeal, mother argues that: 1) the juvenile court erred in failing to provide her with proper notice of her writ rights; 2) she was not provided with reasonable reunification services; 3) the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition; 4) the court erred in failing to remove the child from placement with the paternal grandparents; and 5) the beneficial parental relationship exception (S 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A))applied. Court affirm the order. |
| Rating |
