In re Celia R.
Filed 6/21/06 In re Celia R. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| In re CELIA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187394 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK54302) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOISES R. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Moises R.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Gloria R.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Arezoo Pichvai, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________
Moises R. (father) and Gloria R. (mother) appeal from the order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] terminating parental rights to Celia R. Father contends substantial evidence does not support the finding Celia is likely to be adopted. Mother contends she proved that the exception to termination of parental rights in section 366.26, subdivision (C)(1)(A) applies to her. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Celia was born with drugs in her system to mother and father (the parents) in December 2003.[2] Celia was detained by the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) in the foster home of Thelma M.[3] On January 7, 2004, the dependency court ordered the Department to begin to provide reunification services. Celia was declared a dependent of the court on March 30, 2004, based on sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] that the parents had a history of substance abuse, mother used cocaine during her pregnancy with Celia, Celia and mother tested positive for cocaine at Celia's birth, and father tested positive for cocaine ten days after Celia's birth. Custody was taken from the parents, reunification services were ordered, the parents were awarded monitored visits of at least three hours per week, and the Department was given discretion to liberalize visits. The parents were ordered to complete a substance abuse rehabilitation program, a parenting program, and individual therapy. Celia was a client of the Regional Center,[4] because she had Down Syndrome. The Department was ordered to provide the parents an opportunity to participate in all of Celia's medical and Regional Center appointments. On June 4, 2004, the dependency court gave the Department discretion to start an extended visit for Celia with the parents.
Despite 15 months of reunification services, the parents failed to reunify with Celia. The Department did not liberalize visits, because the parents were missing too many drug tests. After completing drug and parenting programs and visiting consistently once a week for one to three hours, mother suffered a relapse and resumed using cocaine in February 2005. The parents stopped visiting regularly and missed most of Celia's Regional Center appointments. Father stopped drug testing in September 2004, did not complete a parenting class, and did not enroll in individual therapy. Mother did not significantly participate in individual therapy. On March 28, 2005, finding that returning Celia to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment, the dependency court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 30, 2005.[5]
Mother visited consistently once a week for three hours and re-enrolled in a drug program, but she had another drug relapse in July 2005. Father did not drug test or maintain consistent visitation.
Celia was in good health and was progressing in her development. In June 2005, when she was 17 months old, she performed at a 10- to 11-month-old level in self-care/feeding and fine motor skills and a 15- to 16-month-old level in social/emotional skills. She could put blocks into open containers, vocalize using bisyllabic consonant-vowel combinations and speak a few words with meaning, be separated from a familiar person for five minutes, initiate social games such as peek-a-boo, give toys upon request, drink from a cup that was held for her, and finger-feed herself. She was a very happy and affectionate child, giving her caregiver hugs and kisses. She also was able to be calmed down easily when she became upset.
Thelma and her adult son, Salvador, wanted to co-adopt Celia. Celia identified Thelma as â€
