In re Maggie G.

Filed 3/29/06 In re Maggie G. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Emily Stevens, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jerry M. Custis, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Pamela G. appeals from the orders of the juvenile court denying her petition for modification and terminating parental rights over her biological child, Maggie G. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant has had a long history of substance abuse and interaction with the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Dependency jurisdiction was commenced with respect to eight of her children in 1989 and terminated in 2001 with the return of the children to the family. Then, in January 2002, appellant gave birth to a baby with a positive toxicology screen for cocaine and PCP. As a result of that baby's toxicology report, a new case was opened that month. In September 2002, reunification services for appellant were terminated with respect to those nine children.

Petition

Maggie was born in November 2002, free from drugs but weighing less than five pounds. She was the subject of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300^[1] petition filed November 26, 2002. The original petition was based on appellant's long history of substance abuse and failure to reunify with her other children. The presumed father, Franky B., was also reportedly a drug abuser. There were also allegations of domestic violence between appellant and Franky. In April 2003, the petition was amended to allege that Franky used inappropriate physical discipline with one of the children and had a history of drug abuse.

Due to procedural problems caused by the need to resolve the numerous issues that arose in the overlapping cases, the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Maggie was not held until June 2003.^[2] By that time, the allegations of the petition had been amended, and the parents submitted to jurisdiction on the amended petition. Pending the hearing, DCFS had been providing appellant reunification services, and she appeared to be making progress in dealing with the drug problem. She had enrolled in a program that provided counseling and drug testing, but not parenting education or individual therapy. Accordingly, although DCFS recommended that no reunification services be provided,^[3] the court ordered the services to continue, at least until the next hearing scheduled for July and later continued to August. The order stated that appellant was to participate in drug counseling, individual counseling, parenting, and random drug testing. Appellant and Franky were permitted monitored visits with Maggie.

Reunification Period

In the July 2003 status review report, the caseworker reported that appellant had visited Maggie only four or five times since April. The visits lasted approximately one hour. The visits were more regular in June, which the caseworker took to be a sign of improvement, although she believed the time appellant spent with Maggie was insufficient to create a bond. Appellant had still not enrolled in parenting classes, but continued to participate in the drug program and was doing fairly well. She had tested positive for PCP on March 27, 2003, and missed several test dates.^[4] She continued to reside with Franky, who was not in compliance with any part of his program. Franky reportedly allowed one of his friends to slap Franky, Jr.,^[5] one of the older children.

The official section 366.21, subdivision (e), six-month review hearing for Maggie was held on August 21, 2003, although she had been in the system for nine months by that point. Appellant had tested positive for PCP a second time, on July 21, 2003, and was not testing regularly. She had not enrolled in parenting classes and continued to reside with Franky, who was still not compliant with his case plan. Visitation was becoming a problem because Franky, who always accompanied appellant when she visited Maggie at the monitoring agency, used profanity, had bad hygiene, and became irate with workers when told after a late arrival that the visit would have to be cut short or rescheduled. DCFS again recommended that family reunification services be terminated. Because appellant was in partial compliance with the plan and was making progress, the court ordered services to be continued. At the hearing, the court stressed the importance of appellant making it to the next stage of the program: relapse prevention and sober living.

In the January 2004 status review report, prepared for the section 366.21, subdivision (f), 12-month review hearing, the caseworker reported that appellant had completed her drug program and a parenting program. She had tested clean for drugs 15 times, but was a no-show six times. She had been more consistent in her visits with Maggie, which had been moved to the DCFS offices. However, because she continued to live with Franky, who was not in compliance with his program^[6] and had no suitable home for the child, DCFS continued to recommend an end to reunification efforts. At the hearing, however, the court was informed that appellant had a new residence. In addition, just prior to the hearing, appellant filed a section 388 petition for modification, seeking custody of all her children, stating that she had moved in with a friend and had room for at least three of them. The court ordered DCFS to assess her new residence, and continued the hearing.

In the February 2004 interim review report, the caseworker reported that appellant's residence was a suitable two-bedroom apartment and recommended that two of the older children, Franky, Jr., and Ebony, be returned to her. Concern was expressed about her ability to care for an infant after so many years of substance abuse. At the hearing, the attorney for Maggie argued that reunification services should be terminated with respect to Maggie because of the child's age and appellant's likely inability to reunify due to failure to test consistently, her continuing involvement with Franky, and her failure to visit consistently. But the caseworker spoke favorably of appellant's progress, and the court continued services once again. The court further ordered the two older children placed with appellant in her new residence and gave discretion to DCFS to permit extended visits with the other older children. This was deemed to be a partial grant of appellant's petition for modification.

In May 2004, the caseworker reported in connection with the section 366.22, 18‑month review hearing that appellant's residence was not suitable for the return of Maggie. Appellant and the two older children returned to her care were still living with appellant's friend. In addition to those four, there was a new baby in residence. Ebony had given birth after being impregnated by a much older man--a friend of Franky's--at the age of 14. Appellant had visited with Maggie only five times since October 2003, and had little interaction with her during those visits. On the positive side, she had tested clean 10 times and missed only two tests in the prior six months. The matter was continued to June.

In June 2004, the caseworker informed the court that appellant had given out three different addresses between February 2004 and June 2004 and appeared to be spending considerable time at Franky's residence. During a visit, one of Franky's adult children stabbed appellant twice. Appellant had not visited Maggie for about a month, and Maggie was fully bonded with her foster mother, who had repeatedly expressed the desire to adopt her. At the June 2004 hearing, which primarily dealt with whether certain of the older children would remain with their paternal grandmother, appellant admitted she could not get Franky, Jr., to attend school and that he was stealing things from the neighbors. Appellant indicated she would soon be moving into her aunt's bigger home and asked the court to consider returning all the children to her. The court stated that â€