In re Amber

Filed 8/9/06 In re Amber 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mother appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her three-year-old daughter, Amber P. We find no errors, and will affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

On June 26, 2004, Mother was arrested for violating probation when she tested positive for methamphetamine. The maternal grandmother and Mother's current boyfriend were caring for Mother's then 16-month-old daughter, Amber, but neither was able or willing to provide long-term care. DCS removed Amber and placed her in foster care.

Mother previously had lost custody of three children in Nevada through Nevada's child dependency system. She does not have custody of two other children, who are living with their biological fathers. Mother also does not have custody of her older daughter. That daughter alleged that she had been sodomized by her father, who admitted the allegation and is currently in prison. She has been placed in a legal guardianship with her maternal grandparents.

Mother began using marijuana at age 16 and methamphetamine at age 19. She admitted that she lost custody of her other children in Nevada because of her methamphetamine use. Mother claimed that, because she had used methamphetamine only twice in recent years, she no longer had a drug problem.

On July 22, 2004, DCS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (g) on the grounds that Mother was incapable of providing support and care because of her drug problem and her incarceration. Mother pled no contest to the allegations in the petition. The court declared Amber to be a dependent child of the court, continued her out-of-home placement, and ordered DCS to provide Mother with reunification services. Mother's treatment plan included drug treatment and testing, parenting classes, and counseling. Mother's plan also included weekly visitation.

After her release from jail, Mother was living at a residential drug treatment facility. Mother participated in various programs, including a 12-step program and classes on chemical dependency and parenting. After successfully completing the programs, Mother moved to a sober living home. She had supervised two-hour visits once every other week.

At the six-month review hearing, the court continued Mother's reunification services. The court also ordered DCS to provide bi-weekly visitation.

Amber had been living with the same foster parents since October 4, 2004. She had bonded emotionally to her foster parents. She did not have a close parent-child bond with Mother.

In the 12-month review report and addendum, the social worker recommended that the court terminate Mother's services. Despite Mother's progress, the social worker noted that Mother had failed to demonstrate an ability to live drug free outside a structured environment.

At the 12-month review hearing on November 17 and 18, 2005, the court found that the return of Amber to Mother's custody would be detrimental. The court terminated reunification services and scheduled a hearing under section 366.26.

On November 18, 2005, Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition, case No. E039325. On December 30, 2005, Mother filed her petition for extraordinary writ. On January 31, 2006, this court denied Mother's writ petition, finding that the juvenile court's orders were supported by substantial evidence and that the juvenile court did not err in denying Mother's request to extend services.

In a March 2006 section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended that the parental rights of Mother and Amber's presumed father be terminated and that Amber be freed for adoption. Prior to the termination of visitation, Amber had regressed after unsupervised visits with Mother, in that she would no longer sleep in her bed at night and was whining, having difficulties at school, and clinging to the foster parents. However, after visits were terminated at the 12-month review hearing, this was no longer an issue. Amber appeared to be emotionally well adjusted and did not display any mental, developmental, or emotional concerns. She had demonstrated an appropriate attachment and emotional bond to her prospective adoptive parents. She referred to the foster parents as â€