In re J
Filed 6/1/06 In re J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E039553 (Super.Ct.No. J193698) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Patrick J. Morris, Judge. Affirmed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.M.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.P.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
M.M. (mother) and J.P. (father) appeal from orders terminating their parental rights to J. (child). Mother has a long history with the dependency court dating from 1997, and the child has many other half siblings by different fathers who have been dependents of the court. Mother's parental rights have been terminated as to four of them. None of these half siblings is a party to this appeal.
The child was born in February 2004. Soon thereafter mother left the child with a relative without provision for support and did not return for the child. The relative contacted the Department of Children's Services (DCS) on March 4, 2004. The relative told DCS that she thought the child was going through drug withdrawal because of shaking and tremors. Mother had a history of substance abuse, mental illness and extensive criminal activity. Mother was then incarcerated for assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a controlled substance for sale. She was also on parole for another offense. Father's whereabouts were not known. Father also has an extensive criminal history and has been in state prison a number of times.
DCS filed a petition on March 9, 2004, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (g) and (j).[1]
On June 17, 2004, mother and father were both present for a jurisdiction hearing. Father had been released from prison on June 15, 2004. After they executed a waiver of rights (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-190), they submitted on the reports prepared for the hearing. The recommendation was for no reunification services for mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10). The case was set for a contested disposition hearing.
Father indicated possible Blackfeet tribal affiliation. Notice was sent to the tribe, and it responded that the child was not an Indian child.
The disposition hearing was held on September 17, 2004. Mother was not present as she was in a residential program. Father was present. Counsel on behalf of mother objected to the recommendation of no reunification services. The reports prepared for the hearing were introduced into evidence. The court declared the child to be a dependent of the court. It ordered no reunification services for mother. Father was granted reunification services. The case was set for a six-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
The review hearing was held on May 9, 2005. Neither mother nor father was present. Father was in custody in Los Angeles County. Father had not visited the child in the previous six months, and he had been arrested twice. His mother claimed that he had threatened her. He had not completed any part of his case plan. Father's counsel had no comment on the recommendation to terminate his reunification services. Mother had absconded from parole, and her counsel likewise had no comment.
The court terminated father's reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered the clerk to send notices of the parents' right to seek writ review of the court's orders and findings to the last known addresses of mother and father. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a).) Notices were sent.
On December 12, 2005, father filed a changed circumstances petition pursuant to section 388. The court conducted a combined section 388 and section 366.26 hearing on December 27, 2005. Mother and Father were present. Father and the social worker testified. The court denied the section 388 petition. It found the child was adoptable and terminated the rights of mother and father.
Mother and father have appealed, and at their request we have appointed counsel to represent them. Counsel have both filed no-issue briefs under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but they have not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Gaut
J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Apartment Manager Lawyers.
