In re M.B.

Filed 6/28/06 In re M.B. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. James C. McGuire, Judge. Affirmed.

Ellen L. Bacon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Steven B. (Father) appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights as to his two-year-old daughter, M.B. We find no error and will affirm the judgment.

M.B. came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS) after she was born drug positive in June 2004 for methamphetamine. The mother (Mother) also tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Father was not present at the time of M.B.'s birth. Both parents had a history of prior dependency proceedings involving other children due to their neglect and substance abuse. They had been offered court-ordered reunification services for those children but had failed to comply with those services. Both parents also had a long history of abusing methamphetamine and alcohol. In addition, Father had an extensive criminal record dating back to 1990.

On June 15, 2004, DCS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of M.B. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).^[1] The following day, M.B. was ordered detained in a confidential foster home.

At the July 8, 2004, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, both parents submitted on the petition. The petition was amended and sustained. M.B. was declared a dependent of the court and removed from the parents' custody. The parents were offered and ordered to participate in reunification services. Their case plans required them to complete a parenting class, an outpatient substance abuse program and counseling and to submit to random drug testing. Father was also required to complete an anger management program.

By the time of the July 13, 2005, status review, DCS recommended that services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. Despite being given numerous referrals and gas script by the social worker, the parents had not complied with their court-ordered case plan. They still had no stable residence, and Mother was about eight months' pregnant with her fifth child. Mother had tested positive for drugs on one occasion and had failed to test on another occasion. Father had also failed to test on one occasion and showed no motivation in getting M.B. back. Moreover, despite having knowledge of the visitation schedule, Father had not visited his daughter in the previous six months. Mother's visits with M.B. had been sporadic. There was no evidence of any bond between M.B. and her parents.

On August 29, 2005, the parents were arrested due to the neglect of their seven‑week‑old son and for being under the influence of methamphetamine. The parents had shown no ability to care for themselves, much less for their children, and had failed to benefit from the counseling and drug treatment they had received.

Meanwhile, M.B., who had chronic asthma and was being treated with numerous medications, was thriving in her foster home. She had been placed in the same home as her three older half-siblings. M.B. enjoyed her siblings and the foster parents. The foster parents were attached to M.B. and her siblings and were willing to adopt all four children.

At the September 15, 2005, 12-month review hearing, the court followed the DCS recommendation and terminated reunification services. A section 366.26 hearing was set.

The section 366.26 hearing was continued numerous times to perfect notice to Father. Father was in custody and requested to be present at the hearing.

In a report filed January 27, 2006, the social worker advised the court that M.B. was very attached to her foster parents and her siblings. The foster parents were equally attached to M.B., and had provided M.B. with appropriate care and love. The foster parents were willing, able, and desired to adopt M.B. as well as her four siblings, including the new baby, who had recently been placed in the home. On the other hand, neither parent had visited M.B. or had even inquired about her.

On February 27, 2006, Father was present in custody and set the matter contested. On March 1, 2006, Father filed a section 388 petition seeking to reinstate reunification services. In support, Father had alleged that he had completed most of the components of his case plan while incarcerated. The court summarily denied the section 388 petition, finding that the petition had failed to state new evidence or a change of circumstance and had failed to show how reinstatement of reunification services would be in the best interest of the child.

The section 366.26 hearing was held on March 8, 2006. Both parents were present. The court received the social worker's reports into evidence; following argument, the court, finding M.B. adoptable, terminated parental rights.

Father appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth an integrated statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have invited Father with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P.J.

McKINSTER

J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Real Estate Attorney.

^[1] All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.