In re Dylan B.
Filed 2/16/06 In re Dylan B. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re DYLAN B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUREAU OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THERESA K., Defendant and Respondent. | A110421 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Nos. J0301854 & J0301855) |
Theresa K., mother of Dylan B. and Dale B., appeals from orders denying her petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] for modification and terminating her parental rights. Our review of these juvenile dependency orders is limited to a narrow question: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mother's request for continued reunification services and terminated her parental rights. We conclude it did not, and, accordingly, affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 24, 2003, Mother pled no contest to allegations contained in a juvenile dependency petition that her substance abuse problem and history of domestic violence endangered her children. The children, then ages seven and two, were placed with their maternal grandparents. Mother was given a reunification plan that included individual counseling, domestic abuse counseling and substance abuse treatment. The substance abuse treatment required Mother to participate in intensive outpatient treatment and testing, as well as successfully complete an Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) program.
A report by the Contra Costa County Bureau of Family Services (Bureau) prepared for the six-month review hearing recommended terminating reunification services. The report noted that, other than occasionally visiting her children, Mother failed to comply with her reunification plan. She did not participate in domestic violence or drug abuse programs and had initiated hostile encounters with the father in violation of court orders. She was homeless for at least part of this period. A subsequent memo from the Bureau dated July 8, 2004, indicated Mother was incarcerated and was not expected to be released for another four months. At the review hearing, held August 11, 2004, the juvenile court followed the Bureau's recommendation and terminated Mother's reunification services.
On December 6, 2004, the court terminated the father's reunification services and set the case for a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26.
On February 8, 2005, Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting an additional six months of reunification services. She claimed to have been living in the Love-A-Child Missions residential treatment program and testing clean for methamphetamines since September 22, 2004. A progress report from Love-A-Child indicated that Mother was in the first phase of a one-year program. Mother also submitted a certificate of completion of a parenting workshop and records of three clean drug tests.
On March 23, 2005, the Bureau submitted a report recommending that parental rights of both parents be terminated. The report noted that, during a visit in February, Mother had attempted to coach Dylan to tell the social worker he wanted to be with her.
The boys had been placed in a new foster home as of February 1, 2005. The new caregivers were close friends of the boys' maternal relatives, and the boys were reported to have frequent contact with their uncle and grandparents. Both were very happy in the new placement and positive about being adopted by their current caregivers, who were eager to adopt them.
The Bureau opposed Mother's section 388 petition. It noted that Mother had been incarcerated during much of the reunification period and was in the early stages of a recovery program that she could not complete until September 2006. Although Mother was taking medications for depression and anxiety, she was not undergoing psychotherapy and provided no apparent progress report regarding her treatment. She did not participate in a domestic violence program and did not see her children during her six-month incarceration.
The hearing on the section 388 petition and the hearing under section 366.26 were held contemporaneously over three days in March and April of 2005. The children's attorney testified that Dylan was happy with his foster parents and wanted to be adopted by them. When asked about his parents, Dylan was described as â€
