In re Jordan M.

Filed 4/6/06 In re Jordan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Deborah 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.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

T.M. (Mother) is the mother of four children, three of whom were initially brought before the juvenile court for detention on July 29, 2004. The children, Jordan M., M.R., and K.J., came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS) when five-year-old K.J. was found late at night, without adult supervision, begging for food at a market.^[1] This was not the first instance of K.J. begging for food at this market. Two weeks prior to this detention Mother had been issued a $150 food voucher by DCS. Mother was arrested on July 27 for child endangerment and placed in custody. K.J.'s father desired custody of his son; the fathers of the two other minors could not be located. DCS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g)^[2] on behalf of the minors on July 29, 2004. Pending the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, two-year-old M.R. and three-year-old Jordan were placed in separate foster homes, while K.J. was placed with his father.

The DCS jurisdictional/dispositional report prepared for the August 24 hearing recommended dismissing the dependency action as to K.J., placing him with his father and granting the father custody. Reunification services were to be ordered for Mother as to M.R. and Jordan. The report described Mother as having a drinking and substance abuse problem, which interferred with her ability to take care of her children. Mother frequently left her children with others and lacked awareness of the seriousness of her problem and the attendant consequences for her children. Security personnel at the apartment complex, where Mother and the children lived in a single-bedroom apartment along with seven other individuals, told DCS that K.J. had been left unattended many times and had to be taken back to Mother, who was usually intoxicated. This pattern of neglect extended to M.R. and Jordon. The children were running around the apartment complex unsupervised, late at night. They wore ragged, dirty clothes and sometimes no clothes at all. Mother's cohabitants, including a materal aunt and six other individuals, reportedly consumed alcohol and used drugs. Mother, the maternal aunt, and the others in the apartment were being evicted.

Mother, released from custody on August 9, 2004, did not immediately contact DCS. When she did contact DCS on the August 12, she denied the children were ever unsupervised and that she abused illegal substances. Mother wanted her children returned and could not understand why DCS would not do so.

On August 24, 2004, the court set the matter for mediation. M.R.'s father had been located, and DCS agreed to deem him a persumed father. Jordan's father was deemed an alleged father and therefore not entitled to services.^[3] Mother was homeless and had not visited the children. She made little effort to reunify with them.

The contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was finally held on September 17, 2004. Mother's counsel was present; Mother was not. The court sustained the petition as amended, and M.R. and Jordan were declared dependents of the court. Reunification services were ordered for Mother and M.R.'s father, but not for Jordan's father. K.J.'s dependency was dismissed with physical custody awarded to K.J.'s father. Mother was allowed supervised visitation with K.J.

By the time of the section 366.21, subdivision (e) hearing held April 1, 2005, Mother had not visited her children nor attempted to establish any contact with DCS since the inception of the case in July of the previous year. She was not present for the hearing, but was represented by her counsel. The DCS report prepared for the hearing observed that three-year-old M.R. and four-year-old Jordan were in two separate stable placements. A parent search for Mother had been implemented, since she failed to show up for either the court-ordered mediation or the jurisdictional/dispositional hearings. DCS noted neither Mother nor M.R.'s father had attempted to visit the children or to contact DCS, nor had they made any effort to comply with their reunification plans. DCS recommended termination of their parental rights and that the children should be placed in a concurrent home.

The court followed the DCS recommendation and terminated reunification services. A section 366. 26 hearing was set. An interim DCS report advised the court that both children were doing well in their respective foster placements and that weekly visitation between the siblings was occurring. DCS was seeking an adoptive home that would take both children.

On July 13, 2005, M.R. was placed in an adoptive home. She was adjusting well to the new placement, eating and sleeping without difficulty and not displaying any behavioral problems or developmental delays. Jordan was placed with his sister in the adoptive home on July 22, 2005. He adjusted to the new placement with minimal difficulty. He appeared to be enjoying his new surroudings and displayed no behavioral or health problems. The children had had no contact with their parents since July 2004. The children were very much bonded to each other. Both chldren were calling their prospective adoptive parents â€