In re T.T.
Filed 6/22/06 In re T.T. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| In re T. T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B186814 (Super. Ct. No. JD02636) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHIRLEY S., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Patricia Spear, Judge. Affirmed.
Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jerry M. Custis, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
A former legal guardian appeals, challenging the dependency court's order denying her request to have a dependent child returned to her care. We affirm.
FACTS
T. T. tested positive for cocaine at the time of his birth (in March 2001), as did his mother, Pamela J.[1] Shortly after T.'s birth, he and two of his half-siblings (Derrick I., who was born in 1994, and Shanika I., who was born in 1995, neither of whom is a party to this appeal) became dependents of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) and the three children were placed with Shirley S.[2] Reunification services for Pamela were terminated, and in November 2002, Shirley was appointed as the legal guardian for the three children.
In June 2004, the two older children told a social worker that Shirley used a belt and other objects to beat all three children and, specifically, that she frequently struck T. on his arms, legs, and bottom. The Department of Children and Family Services filed a new petition, alleging Shirley's physical abuse of T., which Shirley did not contest and which was sustained (as amended) in August (§ 300, subds. (a), (b)). T. was placed in foster care, and the two older children were placed elsewhere. Shirley's pro se objection (she claimed she was coerced to accept the mediation agreement) was rejected by the dependency court, and she was ordered to attend conjoint counseling with T. and to participate in a parent education program. Weekly visits were authorized.[3]
When Shirley completed a 12-week parenting program, her visitation rights were liberalized and increased. By December, T. was spending holidays with her and staying overnight. Shirley was doing well, and she and T. (then three-and-a-half years old) were enrolled in conjoint counseling -- but at the first conjoint session (December 2004), Shirley did not restrain T. (who climbed on the furniture), and T. was excluded from the second session. Shirley missed the third session, and on one occasion appeared when no session was scheduled. The counselor recommended a psychological evaluation of Shirley, and saw no point in continuing in the conjoint therapy. The Department agreed and asked the court to order an evaluation.
Shirley objected, so the court ordered the Department to prepare a supplemental report incorporating her views and the views of another therapist. The court ordered Shirley to have at least one session with the new therapist before the next court hearing but she did not comply with that order. In March 2005, after considering the Department's supplemental report, the court ordered the evaluation and further reunification services.
In August, the court-appointed psychologist (Ronette Goodwin-Mathews) submitted a report in which she opined that Shirley's â€
