In re Elizabeth R.
Filed 7/6/06 In re Elizabeth R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re ELIZABETH R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAREN M., Defendant and Appellant. | E039627 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ110042) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Dodd & Associates and Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
INTRODUCTION
In this dependency proceeding, the mother, Karen M., appeals an order denying her modification petition under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388. She contends that, because she made the requisite prima facie showing, the juvenile court erred in denying a hearing on her petition. Alternatively, she argues the juvenile court erred in denying her petition without considering relevant factors.
We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2005, the mother had been in prison for five months and had an expected release date of June 10, 2006. Elizabeth R. was nine months old and in the custody of her father.
On May 28, 2005, a police officer approached the father and a female friend as they were walking the baby. The father ran away and, although the officer pursued him, the father escaped. Subsequently, the paternal grandparents consented to a search of the father's portion of their residence. Officers found drugs, guns, and a baby crib in the garage room.
Dependency proceedings were begun and the baby was placed with an aunt. On July 11, 2005, family reunification services were denied to both parents and a section 366.26 hearing was scheduled for January 9, 2006. The baby was placed with prospective adoptive parents.
The mother was present at the July 11, 2005, hearing. Although the mother requested reunification services, the court refused to provide them because her remaining sentence exceeded the six-month reunification period. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).)[2] The court told the mother: â€
