In re Emily M.
Filed 3/29/06 In re Emily M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EMILY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B185576 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK55976) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JENNIFER M., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sherri S. Sobel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________
INTRODUCTION
Jennifer M. appeals from the order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition and the order terminating her parental rights over her daughter Emily M. pursuant to section 366.26. We affirm the orders.
FACTS
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained Emily when she was three months old and filed a section 300 petition on her behalf. On September 13, 2004, the dependency court declared Emily a dependent of the court, after sustaining allegations that appellant (then 20 years of age) and Emily's presumed father, Jeffrey D., Sr.,[2] (then 40 years of age) endangered Emily by leaving her in their car while they engaged in unlawful activity and that both parents had a history of substance abuse, rendering them incapable of regularly providing Emily with care.[3] The court removed Emily from her parents' custody and ordered DCFS to find Emily a suitable placement.
The court ordered family reunification services for appellant, who herself had been a dependent of the court.[4] Specifically, it ordered appellant to participate in parent education, drug counseling, random drug testing (advising appellant that a missed test would be considered a â€
