In Brianna G.

Filed 5/15/06 In Brianna G. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Anna L. Ollinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

A mother appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights and freeing her daughter for adoption. She contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights by conditioning her right to a contested hearing on the issue whether her parental rights should be terminated on presenting a sufficient offer of proof. She also argues her rights were violated because the court limited her offer of proof to the question of visitation to the exclusion of other fact issues. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Mother, Melissa T., gave birth to her daughter Brianna G. in September 2003. Mother was then 19 years old.

On August 7, 2004 mother was arrested for taking an automobile without the owner's consent.[1] When arrested Brianna was in the care of one of mother's friends. A few weeks later, on August 24, 2004 the friend was arrested for possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale.[2] The arresting officers requested assistance from the Department and Children Services (DCFS) and DCFS took Brianna into protective custody.

On August 30, 2004 DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging mother was incarcerated and had made an inappropriate plan for then 11-month-old Brianna by choosing a caregiver who was arrested on drug related charges which left the child without a caregiver.[3]

Mother's friend told the social worker she had no information to offer regarding Brianna's father or other possible family members. The friend stated she had been caring for Brianna since August 6, 2004, the day before mother's arrest. When detained Brianna was appropriately clothed, had good hygiene and appeared to be well nourished. The social worker also found Brianna to be active, alert and engaged in age appropriate behavior. The social worker placed Brianna in a foster home.

At the detention hearing held August 30, 2004 the court found a prima facie case for detaining Brianna. At this hearing mother indicated Darren C., who was then in custody at the California Youth Authority, was Brianna's father. The court ordered the alleged father to be transported from the California Youth Authority for the next hearing scheduled for October 19, 2004. The court further ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services and monitored visits for the parents at least weekly while incarcerated locally. The court deferred any ruling on paternity until the alleged father had received proper notice. Mother requested Brianna be placed with the paternal grandmother.

The social worker interviewed mother in September. Mother explained she did not give Brianna her father Darren's last name because he was dating someone else at the time of Brianna's birth. Mother instead gave Brianna the last name of an ex-boyfriend, Hector G. During the interview mother told the social worker she was also raised in the foster care system but was not sure why.

When the social worker informed mother attempts to reach the paternal grandmother by telephone had been unsuccessful despite several attempts mother suggested placing Brianna with her maternal grandmother instead.

In a follow-up interview, mother reported she had used marijuana since she was 13 years old but stopped when she discovered she was pregnant. DCFS filed an amended petition to include this new information.

The October hearing date was continued to November for the alleged father to be interviewed by the social worker and to evaluate the homes of the maternal grandmother and a maternal cousin for possible placement. At the November hearing the court learned the paternal grandmother was at the time on probation or parole for an unspecified offense. The court continued the hearing to December for the parents' appearance.

By the December hearing Hector G. was also alleged to be Brianna's father. When interviewed in state prison Hector denied he was Brianna's father and requested a paternity test.

Mother informed the case worker she had since been relocated to Valley State Prison for Women with an expected release date of April 19, 2005. Mother stated she was participating in a drug program at the prison similar to Narcotics Anonymous meetings. A counselor at the prison informed the case worker the prison offered numerous programs, including A.A., N.A., parenting education, individual counseling, and a structured substance abuse program. The programs were voluntary and it was up to the inmate to initiate enrollment.

Mother's recommendation for placement with her maternal cousin did not materialize. The cousin had an open case with the DCFS concerning her own children.

On December 29, 2004 the court sustained the allegations of the amended petition and set a contested disposition hearing for February 9, 2005. The court ordered monitored visits for mother at least twice a week while incarcerated locally. The court also directed the DCFS to investigate the suitability of another maternal cousin's and the paternal great grandmother's homes for possible placement. The court also ordered the alleged fathers to be tested for possible paternity.

Mother's referrals again did not work out. The paternal great grandmother did not know the child and was not interested in becoming Brianna's caretaker. The other maternal cousin also turned out to be unsuitable for placement.

Genetic testing revealed neither Darren nor Hector was Brianna's biological father. Mother suggested Jerry H. could be the father. Mother, however, did not know how to reach him. She believed he had moved to Florida after his release from custody.

The court finally conducted the disposition hearing on April 18, 2005. Mother's counsel waived her appearance for the hearing. The court ordered reunification services for mother. The court ordered monitored visits and ordered mother to complete parenting education classes, individual counseling and drug rehabilitation classes with random testing. The court set a review date of May 2, 2005.

Mother was released from prison on April 19, 2005 but did not report to her parole officer.

According to the social worker Brianna was very happy and comfortable in her foster home. She played and interacted well with her caregivers. However, she had not yet started speaking although she was then 18 months old. A recent physical exam showed Brianna was normal and healthy except for the speech delay. At her caretakers' request the DCFS referred Brianna for a hearing evaluation. In the social worker's opinion Brianna seemed mentally and emotionally stable and very bonded with her caretakers. Her caretakers expressed the desire to adopt Brianna.

In a report prepared for the May hearing the case worker described an earlier visit with mother at the Twin Towers jail. When mother came out Brianna began screaming and flailing about. She refused to make eye contact with mother and held tightly to the case worker. Mother started crying and asked why Brianna was behaving this way. Mother stated she had not seen Brianna since Brianna was seven months old. Mother told the worker if visits in jail were so difficult for Brianna she would prefer not to see her.

DCFS sent notice of the May 2005 hearing date to the address mother had last provided to the court and to the parole/probation department. Mother did not appear. The court continued the hearing to May 18, 2005 for the DCFS to provide proper notice.

At the continued hearing date mother apparently had telephoned the court but did not appear. Mother had still not checked in with her probation officer and was still whereabouts unknown. The court terminated reunification services and ordered DCFS to prepare an adoptive home study. The court set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing for September 13, 2005.

The report for the hearing indicated the adoptive home study had been approved. The prospective adoptive parents were both professionals who lived in a quiet and safe community and were reportedly â€