In re Sky L.

Filed 7/11/06 In re Sky L. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stanley Genser, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Arezoo Pichvai and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Mother Stephanie L. challenges the trial court's termination of her parental rights with respect to her daughter, Sky L. Stephanie claims that she maintained regular visitation and contact with Sky such that Sky would benefit from continuing the relationship. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) As substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, we affirm the order terminating Stephanie's parental rights.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sky was born in November 2002. On September 8, 2004, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition to have her declared a dependent child under section 300, subdivision (b), on the basis of an allegation, inter alia, that Stephanie used illegal drugs, rendering her unable to provide Sky with regular care and supervision.[2]

The trial court sustained the amended allegations of the dependency petition and declared Sky subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court on December 2, 2004. Sky was placed by DCFS with a foster parent. Stephanie was offered monitored visitation as frequently as she desired, provided that visits did not interfere with Sky's schedule, and DCFS was given the authority to liberalize visitation as appropriate. Stephanie was ordered to be evaluated for psychiatric needs and to submit to individual counseling, parenting instruction, drug counseling, and random drug testing. Stephanie did not comply with the case plan, and family reunification services were terminated on April 28, 2005.

Sky bonded with her foster mother, who was approved by DCFS to adopt her. The social worker's records indicated that Stephanie visited Sky once per month in the months of April, May, and June 2005; three times in July 2005; once in August 2005; and twice in October 2005. On December 21, 2005, the trial court terminated Stephanie's parental rights and those of Sky's father. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

At a hearing under section 366.26, the court must select and implement a permanent plan for a dependent child. Where there is no probability of reunification with a parent, adoption is the preferred permanent plan. (In re Edward R. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 116, 122.) In order for the juvenile court to implement adoption as the permanent plan, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Then, in the absence of evidence that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of five statutorily-specified exceptions (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(E)), the juvenile court â€