In re Thomas W.

Filed 8/4/06 In re Thomas W. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Calaveras)

----

Appellant Paula G., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating appellant's parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified.) In her brief, appellant acknowledges a long history of drug abuse, but asserts her progress in addressing her drug problem and in reunifying with the minor rendered termination of her parental rights inappropriate. We shall affirm the order.

Facts and Proceedings

A section 300 petition was filed October 23, 2003, on behalf of two-year-old Thomas W., alleging the minor had suffered, or there was a substantial risk the minor would suffer, serious physical harm or illness, and that the minor had been left with no provision for support. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) The juvenile court sustained the petition and adjudged the minor a dependent child. The court also ordered the minor removed from parental custody and granted appellant reunification services. After participating in reunification services, appellant reunified with the minor for an eight-month period and continued with family maintenance services. However, on July 22, 2005, a section 387 petition was filed requesting removal of Thomas W. based on appellant's failure to complete her substance abuse program, her admitted use of methamphetamine and alcoholic beverages, and her out-of-county travel with the minor without notifying the social worker. The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered the minor removed from appellant's custody.

A disposition hearing on the section 387 petition was held on September 22, 2005. Appellant did not appear at the hearing and, although the court provided appellant the opportunity to explain her absence, she never did. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.

A contested section 366.26 hearing was held on February 9, 2006. The juvenile court found the minor was adoptable and that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the minor. Finding no exception to termination of parental rights, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and freed the minor for adoption.

Discussion

Appellant's brief, filed in propria persona, recites her frustrations with the events leading up to the removal of Thomas W. from her custody and the termination of her parental rights. She appears to contend that she has made progress in addressing her drug problem and, therefore, she should have her son returned to her custody and/or be given additional time to reunify. Appellant's claims are not meritorious.

We note the juvenile court found termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the minor and that the minor is adoptable. The record supports each of those findings and appellant does not challenge them.

At the section 366.26 hearing, return of the minor to parental custody was not an option for the juvenile court to consider. Instead, the purpose of that hearing was to select an appropriate disposition for the minor from among these choices: adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b); In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 298.)

Nor is appellant's challenge to the termination of reunification services cognizable in this appeal. Section 366.26, subdivision (l) states in pertinent part: â€