In re Miriah H

Filed 3/20/06 In re Miriah H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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, Lori Schroeder, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Aida Aslanian for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother Rosetta A. appeals from a juvenile court order denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] seeking six months of family reunification services with her youngest daughters, minors Miriah H. and Alexis A.[2] We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's section 388 petition, and accordingly affirm.

FACTS

On September 9, 2004, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition regarding toddler Miriah H. and newborn baby Alexis A. The petition alleged that Alexis and mother both tested positive for cocaine at the time of Alexis's birth, that mother has an unresolved history of substance abuse, and that she has three older children, Michael H. (born 1995), Kenneth H. (born 1996), and Brianna A. (born 2000) who are dependent children of the juvenile court due partly to mother's drug use. Mother failed to reunify with her three older children.

The juvenile court ordered Miriah and Alexis placed in foster care.

According to the jurisdiction/disposition report for October 2004, mother told the DCFS social worker that she has â€