In re D.P.

Filed 9/6/06 In re D.P. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. 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 William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION

Denise P. appeals from the orders of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights over D. P. (four years old) and twins E. P. and E. P. (two years old). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] We affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The events leading to D.'s dependency.

Denise has a history of engaging in domestic violence that resulted in the dependencies and the eventual severing of her parental rights to D.'s two older siblings. D.'s dependency was triggered after the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) learned that Denise had been arrested in October 2003 and charged with assault with a deadly weapon on a maternal cousin. The Department removed two-year old D. As the result of emotional problems, the Department explained, Denise was unable to control her anger. In addition to assaulting the cousin, Denise had physically abused her 10-year-old brother and exposed D. to a violent confrontation with a maternal great-aunt. The Department also noted that Denise was unemployed and had no appropriate housing. The Department filed a petition alleging Denise's physical confrontations, which placed D. at risk of emotional or physical harm. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b).)

The Department originally recommended that Denise receive no reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)). Nonetheless, before the adjudication hearing, Denise had acquired temporary housing for herself and, because she was again pregnant, for her unborn twins. She was seeking permanent housing, attending and participating in domestic violence programs, individual counseling, and a parenting program. Denise's visits with D. had been liberalized to unmonitored. Therefore, the Department recommended six months of reunification.

In March 2004, the juvenile court declared D. a dependent of the court (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b)) and ordered him removed from Denise's custody and placed with his maternal great‑aunt, Mary M. Commending Denise for her efforts at structuring her life, the juvenile court ordered six months of reunification services. It also granted Denise unmonitored visits contingent on her continued compliance with the case plan.

Denise gave birth to twins in March 2004, before the six‑month review hearing. Because they were full-term babies and the proper weight at birth, the Department did not seek to remove them from Denise's custody. Denise had been visiting D. approximately three or four times a week, plus overnight visits, about half of which were unmonitored. After the twins' birth however, unmonitored visits with D. became difficult to schedule and overnight visits ceased, as Denise felt she needed more time to adjust to the twins. Because Denise was complying with the case plan, however, the Department recommended that reunification services be continued another six months.

2. D.'s 12-month hearing.

Before the 12-month hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)), the Department reported that D. was doing well in his placement and had developed a bond with Mary M., his caregiver. Although he also had a â€