In re Mary J
Filed 4/5/06 In re Mary J. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Calaveras)
----
| In re MARY J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| CALAVERAS COUNTY WORKS AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBY J., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050804
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD4217, JD4221, JD4222, JD4223)
|
Ruby J., the mother of seven-year-old Rebecca M., six-year-old Douglas M., four-year-old Nathaniel M., and two-year-old Mary J., appeals from orders of the Calaveras County juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] The mother contends there was no substantial evidence to support the court's finding that it was likely the minors would be adopted. We shall affirm the judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
In August 2004, the Calaveras County Works and Human Services Agency (the Agency) placed the minors in protective custody based on allegations of neglect by the mother. The father was a state prison inmate. He is not a party to this appeal.
In early September 2004, the juvenile court ordered the minors detained. They were placed in a registered Indian foster home. At a contested jurisdictional hearing that month, the court found that the minors were children described in section 300, subdivision (b). At a dispositional hearing in October 2004, the court adopted a family reunification case plan and advised the mother that, if she failed to reunify by late March 2005, the court could take action to terminate her parental rights and order the minors placed for adoption.
The mother made little progress on her case plan. She did not attend employment counseling, parenting education or substance abuse assessment. Nor did she submit to court-ordered drug testing. Her visits with the minors were inconsistent and she did not cooperate with the social worker. Nor did she attend the March 2005 six-month review hearing, at which the juvenile court terminated her reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for July 2005.
The Agency filed a section 366.26 report that included a June 2005 adoption assessment by the State Department of Social Services. The adoption assessment was the only evidence before the court on the issue of the minors' adoptability.
The adoption assessment noted that the minors' current foster family was not committed to adopting them. The assessment discussed each child separately and in significant detail. The assessment found that â€
