In re Richard P.

Filed 8/21/06 In re Richard P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.

Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Gabrielle G. challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and assumption of jurisdiction over her children, four-year-old Richard and three-year-old Jordan. We will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

A juvenile dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300^[1] was filed by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency on October 19, 2005, on behalf of Richard and Jordan. The petition alleged that the children came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).

The petition alleged that on October 3, 2005, Gabrielle left the children with their grandfather, who was physically unable to care for the children, in a home with no electricity, heat, or food for the children. The children were in the grandfather's care for eight days when child protective services (CPS) was notified by the apartment manager that Gabrielle had left the children and indicated she did not intend to return. On October 11, CPS placed the children in voluntary foster care for one night, until Gabrielle could return to reclaim custody. On October 17, however, Gabrielle again left the children with their grandfather under the same conditions of no food, electricity, or heat. CPS was of the opinion that Gabrielle's pattern of leaving the children with an inappropriate caretaker placed the children at substantial risk of harm.

The petition also alleged that a dependency case had been filed on behalf of Richard and Jordan in Alameda County in January 2005, partly on the basis of physical abuse of the children by Gabrielle. The case was dismissed in February 2005 when Gabrielle agreed to informal family maintenance services.

CPS placed the children in protective custody on October 17, 2005. Although Gabrielle was in communication with the social workers and was offered transportation to hearings and visitation, she frequently failed to avail herself of this service. Gabrielle failed to attend meetings with CPS workers and failed to attend or was significantly late for scheduled visitations with the children.

The social study also noted that when Gabrielle left the children with their grandfather, she was contacted and asked to return from Alameda County. Gabrielle refused, claiming she had to â€