In re Heather W.

Filed 6/26/06 In re Heather W. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Beth L. Lewis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for the Minor.

* * *

Jacqueline V., appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her 11-year-old daughter Heather. She maintains the court erred in finding the benefit exception (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A))^[1] did not apply. We disagree, and affirm.

I

In October 2003, then eight-year-old Heather was taken into protective custody. The petition alleged Jacqueline had a lengthy and unresolved drug abuse problem. She physically and verbally abused Heather and failed to ensure she attended school. Jacqueline was no stranger to the dependency court. Due to her drug addiction, her parental rights had been terminated to another child, and she had a teenage son in the dependency system. She pled no contest to the petition and the court ordered the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to provide reunification services. Heather was placed with her paternal grandparents.

Initially, Jacqueline made good progress towards reunification. She worked at two jobs, drug tested, participated in a substance abuse program, a parenting class, and a domestic violence course. Although she missed some visits, Jacqueline usually saw Heather for six hours each weekend, and in April 2004, the visits were no longer monitored.

Heather was physically healthy and seeing a therapist. She had some behavioral problems at school and at home. Heather reported she had fun with her mother during the weekends, and she looked forward to the visits. Heather also enjoyed visiting with her siblings. At the six-month review hearing, the court ordered six additional months of reunification services. The social worker increased Jacqueline's visits to include overnights.

However, two months later, on July 21, 2004, the social worker filed an

ex parte application to inform the court that she had decreased visitation to six hours per week. Jacqueline had allowed a male friend, who allegedly had a prison record, to have contact with Heather before the social worker could complete a background check. He had spent the night at Jacqueline's apartment while Heather was staying overnight. Heather reported her mother had yelled at her and ignored her when this male friend was present.

The following month, Jacqueline tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. In September 2004, the court granted SSA's section 388 petition to require monitored visitation, which was also reduced to two hours per week. The visitation monitor reported Heather's behavior had changed towards her mother. Heather was sometimes defiant, rude, and disrespectful. She also complained about having an upset stomach during visits.

In a report prepared in November 2004, for the 12-month review hearing, the social worker recommended additional reunification services. Jacqueline completed a parenting class and a six-month alcohol and drug education course. Although she had lapsed in drug testing, she resumed testing and all the results in September 2004 were negative. The social worker recommended an additional six months of substance abuse treatment because Jacqueline's level of commitment to sobriety was â€