In re S.P.

Filed 6/29/06 In re S.P. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert M. Padia, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

William Hook, under the appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Noelle S. is the mother of minor S.P., the subject of this appeal. Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.^[1]

On July 28, 2004, one-month-old S.P. (Minor) tested positive for opiates when Noelle S. (Mother) took the child to the hospital emergency room for breathing problems. Mother appeared to be under the influence of drugs, and the hospital notified the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) about the circumstances. The department took Minor into protective custody, and on July 30, 2004, filed a petition on behalf of Minor pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Mother had a history of drug use, mental health problems, and involvement in the criminal justice system. The father,^[2] when contacted, indicated Mother was not stable and used drugs. A jurisdictional/dispositional hearing set for August 2004 and held on October 4, 2004, resulted in Minor being declared a dependent of the court and reunification services being ordered for Mother. Between the original date set for the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing and the actual date of the hearing, Mother had not visited with Minor, and the department had difficulty in locating and keeping track of Mother. Minor meanwhile had been placed in a foster home, and the foster parents were attentive to her needs.

The March 2005 status report noted Mother had not contacted the department or responded to contact attempts made by the department. Minor had bonded with her care providers and was being provided a safe, nurturing, and stable environment. The department recommended termination of the parents' reunification services and screening for Minor for adoption with her current care providers.

On June 16, 2005, the court terminated reunification services for the parents and ordered a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to choose a permanent plan for Minor; the department was recommending adoption as the permanent plan.

The section 366.26 report advocated termination of parental rights with Minor being freed for adoption. Minor had been living with the fos/dopt parents for almost a year. The foster parents desired to adopt and were committed to providing Minor with a permanent home. As of the department's status review report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing held December 27, 2005, Mother had not had any contact with her daughter. Mother, who was present and in custody on the date of the section 366.26 hearing, objected to the recommendation of termination of her parental rights. At the conclusion of the hearing the court terminated parental rights and freed minor for adoption.

Mother appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have invited Mother to file a supplemental brief, and she has not done so.

Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P.J.

GAUT

J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Real Estate Lawyers.

^[1] Unless otherwise designated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[2] The father is not a party to this appeal. At the time of minor's detention he was incarcerated and not subject to release until March 7, 2005.