In re Z.T.

Filed 4/14/06 In re Z.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minors.

I. INTRODUCTION

S. T. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights as to Z. T. (born in January 2000), Sa. T. (born in June 1994), and Sh. T. (born in March 1993) under Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 366.26. We find no errors, and we affirm.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2001, the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (Department) filed section 300 petitions as to minors and their older sister, St. T. (born in February 1986).^[2] The petitions alleged that mother had a substance abuse problem that affected her ability to care for minors, mother was incarcerated and therefore unable to care for minors, and the whereabouts of minors' fathers^[3] were unknown. The detention report stated that mother had been arrested for possession of a controlled substance five times in the past three years, and she was in custody on a no bail warrant for possession of a controlled substance and failure to appear. The juvenile court temporarily detained minors.

In August 2001, the Department reported that minors' development appeared to be appropriate. The three girls were placed together. They asked when they could see mother, but they did not appear sad to be in foster care. Z. T. was placed in a separate home, and he appeared to be adjusting well.

The juvenile court held the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in September 2001. The court sustained the petitions and found that minors came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The court declared minors dependents of the court and ordered reunification services for mother.

In March 2002, the Department reported that mother's whereabouts were unknown; she had been evicted from her apartment in January 2002, and had not contacted the Department. She had been given referrals to substance abuse and other programs, but she had not followed through. Mother had told the social worker she did not have a substance abuse problem. Mother had visited minors only once since they were taken into protective custody, and during that visit, they were tearful and frequently embraced mother. Minors were traumatized by their lack of contact with mother. Sh. T. and Sa. T. were receiving counseling to talk about family issues. Minors enjoyed a close relationship with each other and with their sibling St. T.

The juvenile court held a review hearing in March 2002. Mother did not appear in court; her whereabouts were unknown. The court terminated reunification services and referred the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

In April 2002, the Department reported that it was investigating possible relative placements. The father of Sh. T. and Sa. T. had learned they were in foster care and had visited them four times. Z. T.'s father was unknown.

In October 2002, the Department reported that mother was in a residential substance abuse program where she was attending substance abuse counseling and parenting classes. The father of Sh. T. and Sa. T. had failed to participate in reunification services and had not recently visited the children. The Department had secured an interstate compact that would allow minors and St. T. to be placed with a maternal great aunt and uncle in Texas. The Department recommended that placement.

In December 2002, the juvenile court held a review hearing. The court selected longterm foster care as minors' permanent plan, and minors and St. T. were placed with the relatives in Texas.

In May 2003, the Department reported that mother had been living in a sober living home, but her current whereabouts were unknown. Minors had adjusted well to their placement in Texas. The juvenile court held a review hearing and continued all prior orders in force and effect.

In November 2003, mother filed a section 388 petition alleging that she had completed a substance abuse program, had a stable job, attended daily Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings, lived in an aftercare program, and had completed a parenting class. The juvenile court summarily denied the petition, stating that mother's progress was not sufficient to set a hearing, but that the court would reconsider the matter in June 2004 if mother remained engaged in her programs.

In December 2003, the Department reported that mother was making excellent progress with her substance abuse recovery, and she spoke with minors by telephone twice a month. Mother had not been able to visit minors in Texas because of her work schedule. The juvenile court conducted a review hearing and continued all prior orders in force and effect.

In June 2004, the Department reported that mother's whereabouts were again unknown. Minors remained in Texas, and they seemed bonded to their caretakers. Minors had not heard from mother since January 2004, and the children rarely mentioned her. The juvenile court held a review hearing and ordered that all visitation, letter, and telephone contact would be arranged by the caretakers.

In December 2004, the Department reported that mother had informed them she was drug free, testing clean regularly, living in a sober living home, and looking for a job. The great aunt told the social worker that mother called sporadically, but her calls were made after minors' bedtime or when they were involved in extracurricular activities, so mother could not speak to the children. Mother told the social worker she believed she was ready to have minors returned to her, but the social worker did not feel mother had demonstrated sufficient stability or resources to meet minors' needs. At a review hearing that month, the juvenile court continued all prior orders in full force and effect.

In June 2005, the Department reported that minors remained in their Texas placement. The social worker had had no contact with mother for six months, and mother's whereabouts were unknown. The Department recommended that the matter be referred to a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of adoption for minors. The juvenile court set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

In July 2005, the Department reported that mother had entered a drug rehabilitation program in June 2005.

In October 2005, the Department reported that minors remained with their relatives in Texas where they had been placed for almost three years. Minors appeared comfortable in their home and had a close and loving relationship with their caretakers and their extended family. Minors did not ask to see or talk to mother. The Department recommended that the maternal great aunt and uncle adopt minors. The Department reported that mother had not had face-to-face contact with minors for three years. Mother stated had frequently attempted to call them by telephone but had rarely been successful in speaking to them. Mother had been asked to leave her drug program because of unspecified â€