In re J.M.
Filed 5/25/06 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.R. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E039836 (Super.Ct.No. J200920) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Deborah A. Daniel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.R.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant O.M.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
E.R. (mother) and O.M. (father) appeal from orders terminating their parental rights to J.M. (child) who is presently 14 months old. The child has three surviving half siblings by a different father who are not the subject of this appeal.
The child was born while his mother was in custody. Both mother and father were arrested and criminally charged in the homicide of a 19-month-old sibling that occurred a few weeks before the birth of the child.
On April 5, 2005, a petition was filed on behalf of the minor and his siblings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g).[1] It was later amended to add an allegation pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j). It alleged that mother and her boyfriend, the father of the child, caused the death of the child's sibling by blunt force trauma. The child sustained blunt force trauma to the back of the head, and there were 30 dime-sized bruises on the child's abdomen with extensive underlying internal injuries.
Initially, mother and father denied knowledge of the injuries. Later, father stated that he was holding the sibling while she vomited. He dropped her, and she hit her head on the bathtub. Mother said that the bruises on the sibling's stomach may have been caused by her efforts to perform CPR. An older sibling said that she had noticed the bruising on the sibling's stomach when she was changing the sibling's diaper a few days before the death. She showed the bruises to mother who attended to them.
On May 11, 2005, the court conducted a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. The report prepared for the hearing recommended that no reunification services be provided to either parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(4) [the parent of the child has caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect].) Mother and father were advised of their constitutional rights (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-130), waived them and entered no contest pleas. They submitted on the reports prepared for the hearing. No affirmative evidence was offered. The court took jurisdiction and sustained the petition with the exception of the allegations under section 300, subdivision (e). The court denied reunification services to both parents. The court set a date for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.)
Ultimately, last fall, the child was placed with a nonrelative childless couple that wants to adopt the child. The section 366.26 hearing was continued on November 7, 2005, due to the recent placement of the child with the prospective adoptive couple.[2]
On January 11, 2006, mother filed a changed circumstances petition pursuant to section 388 alleging that she was now out of custody and seeking visitation with the child. It was summarily denied.
On January 26, 2006, mother filed another section 388 petition. The allegations in that petition were substantially the same as the first. It also was denied summarily.
The section 366.26 hearing was held on February 2, 2006. Mother testified at that hearing. Mother offered into evidence letters from Children's Collective and Wings of Faith. They were not received into evidence as they were not relevant to the issues in a section 366.26 hearing. The court found the child was adoptable, and there were no exceptions to adoption. The court then terminated the parental rights of mother and father.
Mother and father have appealed, and at their request we appointed separate counsel to represent them. Counsel for the parents have filed no-issue briefs pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 setting forth a statement of the case and potential issues for our guidance in reviewing the record. Both counsel request that we undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file personal supplemental briefs, but they have not done so.
We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.
[2] Relative placement was pursued, but relatives were either unsuitable or unwilling to take the child.
