In re Gregory T.
Filed 7/7/06 In re Gregory T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 GREGORY T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| MERCED COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARACELI M., Defendant and Appellant. | F049372 (Super. Ct. No. 26643)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Frank Dougherty, Judge.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ruben E. Castillo, County Counsel, and James B. Tarhalla, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Araceli M. appeals from November 1, 2005, orders denying her petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388) to regain custody of her five children as well as orders selecting and implementing permanent plans for each child.[1] Appellant contends the court erred by denying her petition. On review, we disagree and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
In July 2003, the Merced County Superior Court adjudged appellant's children, who then ranged in age from 2 to 15 years old, dependent children of the court and removed them from parental custody. The court previously determined the children came within its jurisdiction, in relevant part, under section 300, subdivision (b). The family home was in deplorable condition with minimal food in the kitchen; four of the five children were filthy from head to toe. Although appellant denied any drug abuse, an investigation revealed she was addicted to methamphetamine. Meanwhile, Frank M., the father of four of the children, was in prison.
Reunification services for appellant included inpatient substance abuse treatment, random drug testing, a mental health assessment, and visitation. Appellant entered a local residential drug treatment program, known as Tranquility Village, and was on the verge of completing it when in March 2004, she â€
