In re Franklin W.

Filed 8/9/06 In re Franklin W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James C. McGuire, Judge. Affirmed.

Niccol Kording, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Sharon W. (Mother) appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her five adopted children: 15-year-old T.W., 15-year-old C.W., 13-year-old N.W., 11-year-old D.W., and 10-year-old Franklin W. We find no error and will affirm the judgment.

In July 2005, the children came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS) when DCS responded to a weekend immediate response call from Fontana police alleging that the children were victims of gross sexual abuse by the adoptive father, Robert W., who is the children's stepgrandfather. The children reported that, for many years and on numerous occasions, Robert digitally penetrated them, inappropriately touched them, kissed them, fondled them, forced them to orally copulate him, orally copulated them, and forced the female children to have sexual intercourse with him. At times, Robert sexually molested the female children while other female children were in the same room and forced some of the children to watch. Essentially, Robert's sexual molestation of the children, with the exception of Franklin, had been chronic and relentless and consisted of almost every conceivable act. In addition, the female children were photographed while nude and in various sexual positions.

Mother, who is the adoptive mother of the children and the children's biological grandmother, knew of these sexual molestations as early as December 2004 but failed to protect the children from being sexually abused. Mother instead told the children that they would not have a place to live if Robert went to jail because she was unemployed. Robert and Mother were eventually arrested, and the children were taken into protective custody.

Minors C.W. and N.W. are the biological children of Mother's son, A.M. Minors T.W., D.W., and Franklin are the biological children of Mother's daughter, M.M. The sexual molestations were reported to authorities when C.W. and N.W. disclosed the molestations to their father A.M. while they were visiting him in New Jersey.

On July 20, 2005, DCS filed section 300 petitions on behalf on the children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), (g), (j).^[1] DCS recommended that both Mother and Robert be denied visitation as detrimental to the children.

At the July 21, 2005, detention hearing, the juvenile court found that the children should remain in protective custody and ordered sibling visits and counseling for them. In addition, the court ordered no visitation with Robert. A no‑contact order between the children and Mother was granted based on a history of Mother allowing the sexual abuse to continue as well as Mother telling the children she would commit suicide if they were not returned to her.

In an August 11, 2005, jurisdictional/dispositional report, DCS recommended that neither Robert nor Mother be offered reunification services, based upon Robert's chronic sexual abuse of the children and Mother's knowledge and denial of the abuse. Mother informed the social worker that the older girls, C.W. and T.W., had had a fight with Robert and disclosed the abuse to get even with him. She also explained that the girls had begged her to not contact the police about the abuse, and after they had disclosed the abuse, she watched them â€