In re T.L.
Filed 7/27/06 In re T.L. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re T.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187959 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK56356) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY J. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anthony J.
Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mother.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The parents of T.L. (born in March 2005) appeal from a December 13, 2005 order terminating their parental rights. T.L.'s mother (Mother) also appeals from two orders denying hearings on her petitions for modification. We affirm the order terminating parental rights because the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).)[1] And we affirm the orders denying hearings on Mother's petitions for modification because Mother fails to establish the denials constituted abuses of discretion.
BACKGROUND
In March 2005, when T.L. was born, both Mother and Anthony J. (Father) were incarcerated. Mother had been incarcerated in September 2004 for child cruelty based on allegations that she failed to protect her two older children, N.L. (born in Nov. 1995) and R.L. (born in Feb. 2000), from sexual and physical abuse.[2] Father was incarcerated on allegations that he physically abused N.L. and R.L. T.L. was detained at birth and placed in foster care with a prospective adoptive parent, where he remains.
Although Mother was released from custody on March 7, 2005, her criminal case remained pending. Mother began weekly monitored visits with T.L. on March 25, 2005. At the time of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on May 10, 2005, Mother was enrolled in parenting, individual counseling, and domestic violence counseling.
On May 10, the court sustained the petition, finding that T.L. was a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a) (risk of serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse of sibling) based on Mother's knowledge of the physical abuse of T.L.'s siblings by Father and Mother's failure to take action to protect the siblings, Mother's leaving the siblings in the care of the maternal grandmother, who sexually abused N.L., Mother's failure to provide T.L.'s siblings with appropriate medical and psychological treatment, and Mother's failure to reunify with the siblings, who were current dependents of the juvenile court and receiving permanent placement services. The parents were afforded monitored visitation.
In a May 17, 2005 interim review report, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) stated that Mother was working hard to get her life back together, but she â€
