In re M.F.
Filed 3/14/06 In re M.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 M.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA F., Defendant and Appellant. | E039414 (Super.Ct.No. J194908) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Robert G. Fowler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
Maria F. (mother), the mother of M.F. (child), appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights. The child's father is not a party this appeal. The child is presently seven years old and resides with her maternal grandparents who wish to adopt her.
The Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition on May 10, 2004, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).[1] The child was then five years old and had been asking neighbors for food. The petition alleged that mother suffered from depression and substance abuse that affected her ability to care for the child, that the family home was uninhabitable for a variety of reasons, that mother's boyfriend had physically abused her in the presence of the child, and that mother had used methamphetamine in the presence of the child.
Mother made no appearance in the case until August 10, 2005, when the selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) was initially set.
On June 2, 2004, a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held. The court sustained the petition, declared the child to be a dependent of the court and adopted a reunification plan for mother.
The court conducted a six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) on November 19, 2004. Despite mother's lack of progress and transient lifestyle, DCS recommended continuation of reunification services after initially recommending termination of services.
The court conducted a 12-month review hearing on May 13, 2005. Reunification services were terminated, and the case was referred for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) The clerk mailed mother notice of her writ review rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(b).) She did not seek writ review of the orders made at the review hearing.
On the date of the selection and implementation hearing, August 10, 2005, mother appeared in court for the first time. She had not visited the child since May 6, 2004. Counsel was appointed and the hearing continued.
On October 11, 2005, mother filed a changed circumstances petition pursuant to section 388, alleging that inadequate services were provided under her reunification plan and that she was currently attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. The court denied the petition without a hearing as it failed to state a prima facie case.
The court conducted the selection and implementation hearing on November 14, 2005. Mother was present and presented no affirmative evidence. She requested that the court adopt a plan of guardianship. The court found the child adoptable, selected adoption as the most appropriate plan and terminated parental rights.
Mother has appealed and at her request we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and requesting this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record. We provided mother with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
We have now completed our 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/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication courtesy of Santee minimum wages lawyer( http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/ )and Santee lawyers directory( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/)
