In re Jacqueline F.

Filed 7/27/06 In re Jacqueline F. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary L. Vincent, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Beth L. Lewis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Charity V., mother of three-year-old Nevaeh F. and nearly two-year-old Jacqueline F., appeals from a postjudgment order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,[1] terminating her parental rights and freeing her daughters for adoption. Mother's sole contention is the court should have applied the benefit exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) to select a less permanent plan than adoption. There are no issues pertaining to the father. We affirm.

FACTS

At the time of Nevaeh's birth in April 2003, her mother tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana, and barbiturates, Nevaeh's toxicology screen was positive for amphetamines, and the newborn exhibited withdrawal symptoms. After a hospital hold was placed on Nevaeh, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition on her behalf, alleging, inter alia, mother's admitted use of illegal substances during her pregnancy, her unresolved five-year history of drug use, and father's extensive drug-related criminal history.

Mother participated in her required programs and attempted rehabilitation early in the dependency, but her relapse in January 2004 sabotaged an in-progress 60-day trial visit. Thereafter, at the 12-month review hearing in May 2004, mother, pregnant, was once again pursuing sobriety. She visited Nevaeh twice weekly for one hour, and mother and daughter exhibited mutual enjoyment of each other's company. In light of mother's progress, the court ordered additional reunification services at the 12-month review hearing.

By the time of the 18-month review hearing in October 2004, mother had given birth to Jacqueline, and both parents appeared to be making considerable progress with their case plans in Nevaeh's dependency. Nonetheless, because the statutory time for reunification had expired, SSA was obligated to recommend, and the court ordered, termination of services and referral to the .26 hearing,

In the interim leading to the .26 hearing, there were progress reviews in November 2004 and January 2005. At the latter hearing, the court ordered a second 60-day trial visit, already in place and apparently going well, to continue. The following month, the court granted mother's oral section 388 motion to vacate the .26 hearing and return Nevaeh to her parent's care under a family maintenance plan.

The arrangement was short-lived. In March 2005, father stopped participating in his case plan, and in April, mother stopped drug testing and attending counseling and perinatal classes. In May, after admitting to the social worker that she had been smoking methamphetamine daily for about one month, mother agreed to enter an inpatient drug program, from which she was quickly terminated following a positive drug test. Once again, mother admitted using methamphetamine.

Further deterioration in the situation resulted in SSA's taking the children into protective custody and filing a new petition on Jacqueline's behalf and a subsequent petition on Nevaeh's behalf in June 2005. Allegations included mother's admitted substance abuse, her unresolved drug history, father's failure to complete a rehabilitation program, and the parents' â€