In re Selena F.

Filed 2/21/07  In re Selena F. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

     Nancy C. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order

that terminated reunification services with respect to her six oldest children^[1] and adopted permanent plans of out-of-home placement with a goal of legal guardianship for five of them, and out-of-home placement with a goal of emancipation for the sixth.  Mother argues the court should have returned custody of the children to her because the evidence was insufficient to establish that return would present a substantial risk to their safety, protection, physical or emotional well-being.  She argues the court also erred when it approved a permanent plan of emancipation for her eldest child.  Since the first contention lacks merit, and the second was forfeited, we will affirm the order. 

Facts and Procedural Background

     The six children who are subject to this appeal are the oldest of Mother's nine children.  Their father suffers from a mental disability and waived reunification services in July 2005.

Mother's three youngest children were fathered by Larry V., who has suffered multiple domestic violence convictions (Pen. Code, § 273.5) since 1999 for inflicting injuries on Mother.^[2]   It was one of those outbursts–-against Mother and his own children–-that led respondent Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) to commence dependency proceedings with respect to the children in March 2004.

The children were adjudged dependents of the court in    May 2004 based on (1) Mother's failure to protect them from witnessing incidents of domestic violence in which Larry V. injured her, (2) Mother's denial or minimization of these incidents, and (3) her refusal to obtain a protective order against him.^[3]  The dispositional order specified, among other things, that Mother would refrain from alcohol and drug use, undergo regular drug testing, have no contact with Larry V.,  and visit the children regularly.  The children were placed with their maternal aunt.

In August 2004, the court sustained subsequent dependency petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 342--subsequent undesignated statutory references are to this code) alleging a further act of domestic violence that occurred several weeks after the dispositional hearing, in which Larry V. twice struck Mother on the side of her face, drawing blood.  At the time, Mother was in her third trimester of pregnancy.  The court also approved placing the children in foster care because their aunt was financially unable to continue providing for them. 

     After he was released from jail in November 2004, Larry V. resumed living with Mother, and tested positive for methamphetamine use one month later.  Mother denied any involvement with him, but she stopped attending counseling sessions and tested positive for codeine use in January 2005.^[4] 

     Notwithstanding her relapse, Mother completed her group therapy sessions, parenting classes, and domestic violence classes by February.  She maintained steady employment, and unsupervised visits with the children commenced in March.

     During an unsupervised visit that took place on May 1, Mother took the children to a park close to the residence of a relative of Larry V.  Larry V. appeared and Mother allowed him to stay for 15 minutes, even though he was intoxicated and having difficulty walking.

     Following her failed drug test in January, Mother was directed to undergo drug testing twice weekly.  She complied for several months, but unilaterally decided to stop testing after submitting a sample on May 27.

     Four days later, she cancelled a scheduled, unsupervised visitation with one of the children.

     Two months later, Mother contacted the social worker and indicated she was ready to resume visits with the children.   The social worker, who was unaware of Mother's decision to stop drug testing, proposed unsupervised weekend visits between Mother and the children.  The social worker recommended splitting up the visits, so Mother could see several of the children on one weekend, and the rest the following weekend.  Mother refused the proposed arrangement, insisting on seeing all of the children at once.

     The social worker made arrangements for unsupervised daytime visits with all of the children, and the visits were held on July 10 and 24, without incident.

     On July 29, the social worker scheduled unsupervised overnight visits with some of the children beginning August 19, and with the rest of the children on August 26.

     On August 7, Mother had her final visit with all of the children prior to the first unsupervised overnight visit.     The following day, Mother telephoned the social worker to report that her youngest boy had blisters on his fingers and had told her that his foster mother had burned them.  The foster mother denied the allegation, and the child was examined by a physician, who reported that the blisters were not the result  of burns.  The social worker questioned the child, who denied knowing how he got the blisters.  When Mother was informed of these facts, she replied:  â€