In re Halley M.

Filed 6/30/06 In re Halley M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Appellant Joyce M. appeals from an order denying additional visits and suspending telephone calls between her and her dependent daughter, Halley M. Appellant contends the juvenile court's order was an abuse of discretion. We disagree, and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Halley M. is the 12-year-old biological daughter of appellant and Joseph A. When the events leading to these dependency proceedings occurred, Halley was being raised in Pomona by appellant and her ex-husband, Craig M. Craig M. is the biological father of Halley's half-sisters, Rachael and Christen (sisters).[1]

On January 29, 2003, Halley and her sisters were taken into protective custody after police discovered a methamphetamine laboratory on the property of the house in which they lived with Craig M. and their paternal grandmother. Craig M. later pled no contest to felony charges of possessing a controlled substance for sale and of knowingly renting space for storage of a controlled substance.

On May 7, 2003, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on Halley's behalf by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In sustaining the petition, the juvenile court determined that: (1) Craig M. created a dangerous and detrimental home environment by maintaining within the children's reach toxic chemicals used to make methamphetamine; (2) appellant was previously convicted of possession of a controlled substance, conduct that endangered the children's physical and emotional health and placed them at risk of physical and emotional harm; (3) appellant created a detrimental home environment by engaging in certain conduct, including engaging in an ongoing conflict with Halley's paternal grandmother and threatening suicide, that endangered the children's physical and emotional health and placed them at risk of physical and emotional harm from which Craig M. failed to protect them; and (4) Halley's biological father, Joseph A., was previously convicted of spousal abuse and driving under the influence, conduct that endangered Halley's physical and emotional health and placed her at risk of physical and emotional harm. Accordingly, the court declared Halley a dependent child and placed her in the custody of her paternal aunt and uncle, Michelle and David W.

In declaring Halley a dependent child, the juvenile court granted appellant the right to monitored visits with her â€