Filed 11/28/05 In re D.W. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re D.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.B., Defendant and Appellant.	C050271 (Super. Ct. No. J03308)

M.B. (appellant), the mother of D.W. (the minor), appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her petition for modification and terminating appellant's parental rights. (Welf & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388.)^[1] Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The minor was born in November 2003.^[2] Appellant tested positive for marijuana and amphetamines and the minor exhibited signs of drug exposure. On November 25, 2003, the minor was taken into protective custody. Appellant admitted having used both marijuana and methamphetamine the weekend before the minor's birth and admitted she had used drugs two to three times per week in the early stages of her pregnancy. Appellant also admitted she had started using methamphetamine again approximately one week earlier to cope with stress. Appellant had a past history of drug arrests and had been ordered to attend a Proposition 36 drug treatment program but had not complied with this order. Dependency proceedings commenced and the minor was made a dependent of the court on March 2, 2004.

On April 6, 2004, a dispositional hearing was held and the court found the minor had to be removed from his parents' custody. A reunification plan was adopted. This plan required appellant to attend parenting classes, demonstrate parenting skills, participate in a controlled substance assessment and complete recommended treatment, and complete anger management class or couple's counseling.

On June 25, 2004, the minor was placed in the home of Michael and Sandra B. By November 17, 2004, appellant had failed to complete any of the required courses in her reunification plan and had not visited the minor regularly. The court terminated reunification services.

In November 2004, appellant started visiting with the minor and his other siblings on a weekly basis. The behavior during these visits indicated a lack of interest in and attachment to the minor. The increase in visits and participation in reunification services coincided with the removal of appellant's three other children from her home.

In March 2005, appellant completed a parenting program. In April 2005, she completed a domestic violence counseling class and in May 2005, she completed a three-month residential drug treatment program. On May 19, 2005, appellant filed a section 388 petition for modification asking that the order terminating reunification services be modified and that the minor be placed in her home with family maintenance services. Appellant alleged the modification was appropriate because she had substantially complied with reunification thereby correcting the reason services had been terminated and that such modification was in the minor's best interest.

In June 2005, appellant enrolled in an anger management course.

On June 16, 2005, the hearing on the section 388 petition was held. The social worker testified appellant had completed some of the reunification requirements, but noted some significant portions remained incomplete, including the outpatient portion of her drug treatment program. She observed that visits between the parents, appellant's other children and the minor were somewhat chaotic and appellant still needed work on her parenting skills. She observed that the minor was very attached to his foster parents and sought them out for comfort during visits. She also noted the minor was more attached to his foster parents than his biological parents because he had lived with his foster parents for almost a year but only with his biological parents for a few days.

The court denied appellant's petition, finding almost no evidence it would be in the minor's best interest to grant the petition and that it would be detrimental to him to take him away from his foster parents. The court then found the minor adoptable and terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petition for modification, because the â€