In re Michael K.

Filed 3/28/06 In re Michael K. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn H. Mackel, Commissioner. Affirmed.

John L. Dodd & Associates and Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Thea K. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her son, Michael K. Mother also appeals from an order denying, after a hearing, her petition pursuant to section 388 to modify prior orders and return Michael to her custody. We conclude, however, that the trial court properly concluded that Mother failed to show that the best interests of the child would be served by the proposed change of order. Mother further contends that, given the nature of her relationship with Michael, and Michael's relationship with his siblings, the trial court erred in failing to find applicable two exceptions which would have avoided termination of her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A) and (E).)[1] Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding the exceptions inapplicable. We affirm.

factual and procedural background

This matter was previously before us on Mother's appeal from an order denying her section 388 petition as to three of her children, Janet K., Michael K., and Serenity K., by which she sought additional reunification services. The following facts are repeated in part from our earlier opinion, in which we affirmed the order denying the section 388 petition. (In re Janet K. et al. (Jan. 7, 2005, B172828) [nonpub. opn.].)[2]

Janet, born in August 1992, and Michael, born in November 2001, were ordered detained in November 2001 after Michael was born with cocaine in his system. Mother admitted to having no prenatal care and to having used crack cocaine for most of her pregnancy with Michael, including hours before his birth. The children were placed in the foster care home of Mona Lisa B. In August 2002, when Mother was six months pregnant with Serenity, she was arrested for prostitution. Mother's reunification services with Janet and Michael were terminated on September 30, 2002, 10 months into the case, because of Mother's failure to comply with the case plan.

Serenity was born in December 2002, while Mother was residing in a residential drug treatment program. Mother left the drug treatment program with Serenity in early February 2003, and was arrested for prostitution about one week later. On April 8, 2003, Serenity was legally detained by the juvenile court. At the contested disposition hearing in June 2003, Mother testified that she had been convicted of prostitution around six times and had been addicted to drugs since she was 19. The court ordered no reunification services for Mother as to Serenity, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (13), based on her previous failure to reunify with Janet and Michael. Serenity was eventually placed in the custody of her presumed father, Gus V., and dependency jurisdiction was terminated as to her.

In late 2003, Mother began making significant changes in her life: she stopped using drugs and began visiting the children consistently. In January 2004, a social worker reported to the court that Mother â€