In re M.B.
Filed 5/11/06 In re M.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sacramento)
----
In re M. B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARQUITA B., Defendant and Appellant. | C051482 (Super. Ct. No. JD221267) |
Marquita B. (appellant), the mother of M.B. (the minor), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant makes numerous claims of alleged prejudicial errors in the dependency proceedings. Finding no prejudicial error, we shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2004, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the minor, who was born in November 2003. That petition alleged appellant was unable to provide regular care for the minor due to appellant's substance abuse and her incarceration. The juvenile court sustained the petition, adjudged the minor a dependent child, and ordered DHHS to provide reunification services for appellant. The court also granted appellant regular, supervised visitation with the minor, with DHHS to determine the frequency of those visits.
DHHS interviewed appellant shortly after it filed the dependency petition. Appellant began visiting the minor on a weekly, supervised basis in January 2005. However, appellant did not appear in juvenile court until the May 20, 2005, six-month review hearing. The juvenile court had appointed counsel to represent appellant at the October 6, 2004, detention hearing. On December 3, 2004, the court granted a request by appellant's counsel to be relieved from that representation. Counsel was re-appointed for appellant at the May 20, 2005, hearing.
According to a May 2005 social worker's report, visits between appellant and the minor went well. They appeared to be bonded to each other. Appellant was nurturing and interactive with the minor, and the minor appeared to enjoy the visits. In that same report, however, DHHS suggested that if appellant did not complete her reunification services, a decrease in the frequency of visitation would be warranted.
On June 3, 2005, the juvenile court terminated appellant's reunification services. The next month, DHHS reduced the frequency of appellant's visits from weekly to monthly. In a social worker's report dated September 20, 2005, DHHS stated the minor had been moved to a new foster home on August 15. On September 30, 2005, DHHS notified the juvenile court that the minor had been moved to a foster home that would provide a permanent plan of adoption, guardianship, or long-term care if necessary. In a document filed October 17, 2005, DHHS stated the new foster home was located in another county. The juvenile court scheduled the placement matter for a hearing. Thereafter, over appellant's objection, the court granted the request by DHHS for the minor's out-of-county placement.
A November 2005 bonding assessment and psychological consultation found â€
