In re J.M.
Filed 8/2/06 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 J.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.R., Defendant and Appellant. | E040221 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ004187) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert W. Nagby, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Ellen L. Bacon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
J.R. (mother), the mother of J.M.1 and J.M.2 (the children), appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her reunification services at a 12-month review hearing. The children are presently nine and seven years old and reside with their father under a family maintenance plan. The next scheduled review date is September 7, 2006.
Petitions were filed on behalf of the children on February 7, 2005, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).[1] At the time the petition was filed father had legal custody of the children through the family law court. The petition alleged among other things that mother was then incarcerated (apparently for violating a restraining order that father had obtained), and that she and the children's father had engaged in episodes of domestic violence in the presence of the children. The petition further alleged that both mother and father abuse controlled substances, father's home was not clean and the children were exposed to lice and fleas.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on March 1, 2005. The pleadings were amended. Mother and father then submitted, and the court sustained the petition and found the children came within section 300, subdivision (b). Custody was taken from mother and father, and the children were ordered into foster care. A reunification plan was adopted and services were ordered for mother and father.
A six-month hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) was held on August 31, 2005. The court authorized the children to be placed in father's home if he passed a hair follicle test for drugs and his housing was adequate. Mother was to move out of the family home. Mother had recently tested positive for drugs. She asked for a referral for a new drug program. The children were subsequently returned to the physical custody of father under a family maintenance plan with the social worker to supervise and report.
A contested 12-month hearing was held on March 7, 2006. The recommendation was to terminate mother's reunification services and to maintain the children in the father's home under the family maintenance plan. Mother had been in and out of drug rehabilitation programs. She had relapsed twice and had tested positive for drugs during the reunification period. Mother's testimony was received by a stipulated offer of proof. Mother was again in a day treatment drug program and had not used for a period of about 14 days. Mother requested that additional services be provided.
The court terminated mother's reunification services and ordered continued placement with the father, who had been making substantial progress, pending the next review date.
Mother has appealed, and at her request we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under 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 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire case.
We offered mother an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Hollenhorst
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Real Estate Lawyers.
