In re P.A.
Filed 7/20/06 In re P.A. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| In re P. A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B188664 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK57116) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent, v. JENNY B., Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lori Schroeder, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Raquel O. Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
______________________________
Petitioner Jenny B., the mother of minors P. A. and J. A., appeals from the order terminating her parental rights in her two children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]
When J. A. was born in October 2004, both she and her mother, appellant Jenny B., tested positive for amphetamines. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took custody of J. A. and her 11-month-old brother, P. A., and filed a petition with the dependency court alleging that the children were at risk of physical harm because of chronic drug abuse by both Jenny B. and the children's father, Darwin A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)[2] In December 2004, the court sustained the petition and ordered the parents to take drug and parenting skills counseling. As of June 2005, DCFS reported that the parents visited the children both inconsistently and sporadically, sometimes brought friends to the visits, and often times argued in front of the children. In July 2005, the court terminated reunification services because the parents had not complied with their counseling and drug rehabilitation obligations.
A permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26) was held in January 2006. A DCFS report prepared for that hearing showed that the minors had lived with their maternal cousin and her husband (the cousins) since November 2004, shortly after the minors were first detained. The cousins wanted to adopt the children. DCFS reported that the children were well cared for by the cousins, and were doing well in their home. The cousins attended to all of the minor's medical and emotional needs. J. A., who had lived with the cousins since birth, recognized them as her primary caregivers. While J. A. recognized her parents, she never lived with them and never developed a significant attachment to either one. Although P. A. lived with his parents for the first 11 months of his life, he had lived with his sister and the cousins ever since, and was â€
