In re Paula J.
Filed 7/13/06 In re Paula J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 PAULA J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA A., Defendant and Appellant. | F049236 (Super. Ct. No. 03CEJ300182-1)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Maria A. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her three children.[1] She contends the court abused its discretion by not finding the benefits of a continued relationship with her outweighed the benefits of adoption for two of the children. On review, we disagree and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The underlying dependency proceedings commenced in August 2003, when, for a second time, appellant's two-year-old son, Jorge, tested positively for methamphetamine and required hospitalization. At the time, he was living with his father who had no explanation for Jorge's condition. The Fresno County Superior Court in turn adjudged the boy a dependent child and placed him with appellant. Appellant also had in her care her six-year-old daughter, Paula, and newborn son, Angel.
In March 2004, appellant, who had been living with the children in a clean and sober living place, was terminated from the shelter after she was seen drinking. She also had left the children unsupervised. Two days later, appellant intentionally burned Paula's right arm, with a curling iron, as a form of punishment. These events led Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) to detain all three children and file a subsequent petition (§ 342) in Jorge's case and an original petition for dependency jurisdiction (§ 300) as to Paula and Angel.
The court sustained the petitions in June 2004 and adjudged Paula and Angel dependent children as well as formally removed all three children from parental custody in August 2004. Up to this point, appellant did not take advantage of services which the department offered her. She also missed more scheduled visits with her children than she attended. Although the court did order reunification services as part of its dispositional orders, appellant did not regularly participate let alone make any progress. In fact, appellant made no effort to participate in services starting in the fall of 2004. Her last contact with her children apparently was in September 2004. Her whereabouts became unknown to the court and the department by December 2004. Consequently, the court terminated services for appellant as to Paula and Angel in February 2005 and as to Jorge in June 2005. The court also set section 366.26 hearing dates to select and implement permanent plans for the three children. Because appellant's whereabouts remained unknown in June, so as to require that notice of the section 366.26 hearing be published, the court reset the hearings to coincide for all three children.
In anticipation of the section 366.26 hearing, the department assessed each of the children as adoptable and recommended the court terminate parental rights. Jorge's paternal grandmother with whom he was placed was committed to adopting him. The maternal grandparents with whom Paula and Angel were placed were likewise committed to adopting them.
Relevant to this appeal, the department recited in its assessment report appellant's poor history of visiting her children. Her failure to appear for scheduled visits without calling to cancel traumatized the children. As a result, in the summer of 2004, the department required her to appear an hour early in order to confirm she would be present. Then, in August 2005, after not seeing the children for nearly a year, appellant re-emerged and requested visitation. The department arranged supervised one-hour visitation every other week and, for the first time, appellant consistently attended the scheduled visits. In turn, the visits had â€
