In re Dylan O.

Filed 6/2/06 In re Dylan O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David S. Milton, 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, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Mother Rosetta G. appeals from the trial court's order terminating parental rights over three-year-old Jasmine and two-year-old Dylan. She claims the juvenile court erred by not finding the sibling-relationship or parent-child relationship exceptions to termination of parental rights. She also contends, and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) agrees, that the juvenile court did not ensure that notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) was proper. We find no error and affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Mother has nine children. All but the eldest, Robert, who is no longer a minor, were removed from her care. This case involves the two youngest children, Jasmine and Dylan, who became dependent children in June 2004, based on mother's drug use, general neglect, and unsanitary conditions in the family home. Jasmine and Dylan were declared a sibling group, and DCFS was ordered to place them together as soon as possible. The court also ordered DCFS to place their siblings in close proximity to Dylan and Jasmine in order to facilitate sibling visits.

Reunification efforts failed, and on January 20, 2005, the court terminated reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing for May 2005. Mother filed a writ petition challenging this order. She claimed DCFS failed to comply with the sibling group requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 366.21, subdivision (e), and that DCFS failed to comply with the notice requirements of ICWA. In an unpublished decision filed on April 28, 2005 (B180784), we denied the requested relief.

On February 23, 2005, mother filed a petition for modification pursuant to section 388, asking that Jasmine, Dylan, and their sister Rose be returned to her care. Mother alleged that she had appropriate housing, had been randomly drug testing and attending substance abuse meetings, was employed, was visiting with the children, and was in compliance with all other court orders. She also asserted that the children wanted to return to her care. At the time of the hearing on the petition, mother had tested positive for methamphetamine on four separate occasions between February 1 and April 11, 2005, missed tests on four other dates, and had been discharged from her drug treatment program. DCFS reported that Jasmine and Dylan were doing well in foster care, and recommended that the section 388 petition be denied. The court found the proposed modification would not be in the best interests of the children and denied the petition.

At the contested permanency planning hearing on October 25, 2005, mother presented evidence to establish that selecting adoption as the permanent plan and terminating her parental rights would be detrimental to the children. She based her claim on the exception in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Mother also sought to establish that adoption would interfere with the children's relationship with their siblings, an exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E). The court found no significant bond between mother and the children, and no indication that the children would suffer detriment if parental rights were terminated. The court also found the evidence insufficient to establish the sibling exception. The court found that Jasmine and Dylan were adoptable, terminated mother's parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan. Mother appeals from this order.

DISCUSSION

I

At a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan, if the court finds a child adoptable and finds that adoption is in the best interests of the child, it must terminate parental rights unless one of four specified circumstances is established. Mother claims the evidence established the applicability of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A): â€