In re Jordan S.
Filed 6/21/06 In re Jordan S. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re JORDAN S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGELINA S. Defendant and Appellant. | F049175
(Super. Ct. No. 02J0040)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Thomas DeSantos, Judge.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Peter D. Moock, County Counsel, and Rebecca Speer-Mathews, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Angelina S. appeals from orders denying her petition to regain custody of her four children and terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to one of the four, her daughter Auzuna.[1] On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The four children in question here are Jordan, born in 1988, Daniel, born in 1991, Joseph, born in 1993, and Auzuna, born in 1998. Dating back to the early 1990's, appellant's chronic neglect and failure to adequately supervise her children has led periodically to their detention and the involvement of child welfare services. The specifics of appellant's claims require our consideration and summary of this history.
After being a juvenile dependent in the mid-1990's, Jordan went to live with his father in Northern California in 1997. Two years later, it was discovered Jordan had orally copulated and sodomized two younger children while in his father's care. Although authorities instituted delinquency proceedings in January 1999 as to Jordan, his young age and the absence of clear proof that he committed the sexual assaults with knowledge of their wrongfulness persuaded a juvenile court to dismiss the delinquency petition and direct the filing of a juvenile dependency petition.
The court subsequently found allegations true that, in relevant part, when Jordan lived with appellant, she left him alone for up to a week at a time without any adult supervision and she physically abused him. In addition, Jordan witnessed sexual acts between appellant and her boyfriends. Moreover, Jordan had special needs, due to his anti-social and psychopathic tendencies, which neither of his parents was capable of meeting.
In January 2000, the juvenile court adjudged Jordan a dependent child and authorized his placement in a high-level group home. Although the court only removed the child from his father's custody, it could not place Jordan with appellant. She was not participating in offered services and had difficulty realizing how her lifestyle and parenting practices had impacted Jordan. Appellant later would deny receiving notice of the proceedings or what was required of her for reunification. However, the record reveals she in fact attended the dispositional hearing in Jordan's case at which she was ordered to successfully complete a variety of services. Eventually in the summer of 2000, appellant commenced participating in some, but not all, of the case plan.
The following summer, Jordan graduated from the group home. It remained necessary nonetheless that he be closely supervised and never be left alone with young children. By November 2001 and despite the fact that appellant had not completed all of the requisite services, the court authorized an extended visit between her and Jordan in the home she shared with her younger children. The court conditioned the extended visit on certain additional services, none of which appellant pursued for either herself or Jordan.
Appellant's noncompliance apparently escaped the attention of the court and social services when, in the midst of the extended visit, the court transferred Jordan's dependency to Kings County where the mother had recently moved. However, social workers new to the case discovered appellant's noncompliance as well as a variety of excuses she offered for not participating court-ordered services. She also made a habit of leaving her three younger children unsupervised and unattended with Jordan. These events led respondent Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) in March 2002 to initiate dependency proceedings as to Daniel, Joseph and Auzuna.
The superior court initially left those children as well as Jordan in appellant's custody subject to her participation in family maintenance services. To her credit, appellant took advantage of the services offered. However, in the fall of 2002, it became necessary to remove all four children from appellant's custody. On the evening of October 30, 2002, appellant became enraged at her partner and engaged in acts of violence. While the children were present in the home, appellant ignited her wedding dress on top of the kitchen stove, intentionally inflicted injuries to her chest with a kitchen knife and held the knife to her partner's neck. A witness to these events reported that appellant said she was going to kill her partner, the children and herself. The older children, awakened by appellant's bizarre and violent behavior, were terrified of the house possibly burning down.
Appellant later attributed her violence to â€
