In re T.H.

Filed 2/13/07  In re T.H. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from an order of Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irwin Garfinkel, Juvenile Court Referee.  Affirmed.

            Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

            Ernestina W. appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to three-year-old T.  She contends the parental-relationship exception to adoption under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applies in this case.  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            1.  The detention

            Ernestina's two older children became dependents of the juvenile court four months before T. was born because of Ernestina's neglect and failure to provide a healthy and safe home.[2]  Jurisdiction over the older children was terminated in January 1994 and they were placed with their father.[3]

            T. had tested positive at birth for cocaine.  Ernestina admitted she used the drug during her pregnancy and three days before T.'s birth.  Ernestina agreed to enter into a family maintenance contract with the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department).  In January 2003, Ernestina entered into a residential drug treatment program with the children.  However, she missed drug tests and was evicted from her apartment and ultimately was discharged from the treatment program because of conflicts with a staff member.  She had only sporadic participation in a second treatment program and tested positive for cocaine in May 2003.

            On May 22, 2003, T. and his sister were detained and the Department filed a petition under section 300 based on Ernestina's history of drug use and T.'s positive toxicology screen at birth, which rendered Ernestina incapable of providing regular care for her children and put them at risk of harm.

            2.  The reunification period

            The juvenile court sustained the petition in September 2003 and, as reunification services, ordered that Ernestina participate in a drug rehabilitation program with random testing, parenting education, individual and conjoint counseling with T.'s older sibling when appropriate.  The court awarded Ernestina monitored visits.

            During the first six months, Ernestina completed a drug program, despite homelessness, illness, and several missed drug tests.  Although her counselor opined that Ernestina should participate in aftercare/relapse prevention, Ernestina never did.  Ernestina attended but did not complete parenting classes.  She visited the children inconsistently and less often than scheduled, due in large part to her health, transportation, welfare, and housing problems.  She only visited the children when the maternal aunt transported them to her.  Still, she maintained daily telephone contact with T.  When she did visit, the visits reportedly went well.

            During the second six months, Ernestina participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and in conjoint counseling with T.'s older sibling.  Ernestina also consistently visited the children twice a week for two hours, missing no visits.  The foster mother reported that the visits went well.  T. was â€