Gloria L. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 8/16/06 Gloria L. v. Sup. Ct. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| GLORIA L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | No. B191027 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK60514) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ. Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Helen Yee for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
_______________________________________
Gloria L. challenges the juvenile court's order terminating family reunification services, and setting the underlying dependency proceeding for a parental rights termination hearing, for three of her five children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)[1] At the six-month hearing ( 366.21, subd. (e)), the juvenile court terminated reunification services for the two children under three years of age. Finding that a third child, age seven, was part of a sibling group with one of the younger children and that this sibling group should be kept together in a permanent home, the juvenile court terminated reunification family services to the seven-year-old. Reunification services for the remaining two children were continued for six months. Mother contends the juvenile court should have determined that all five children were part of a single sibling group and should have continued family reunification services for an additional six months for all five. We deny the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner is the mother of Rebecca (age 9), James (age 7), Amy (age 5), Matthew (age 2½), and Elizabeth (age 1). On September 8, 2005, mother left the children without adult supervision. One of them became frightened and called 911. A social worker employed by the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) interviewed the children, who said they were often left alone, their mother (and sometimes their father) beat them, and their parents used drugs and fought all the time.[2]
The children were detained, and the Department filed a section 300 petition on September 13, 2005. An amended petition was sustained November 7, 2005. The juvenile court ordered mother to participate in individual drug counseling, parenting and anger management programs, and random drug testing. Mother was granted monitored visitation with the children.
Initially, all five children were placed in one foster home. However, the children were split up and placed in three different foster homes after Rebecca accused the foster father of sexually abusing her, and there were no foster homes available to care for five children.
During the six-month reunification period following the children's detention, the children had weekly sibling visits at a local McDonald's restaurant. Mother attended these visits sporadically. Mother likewise failed to comply with the juvenile court's drug testing order and did not provide the Department with verification of her enrollment in any of the juvenile court-ordered programs, despite the Department having given her numerous referrals. Although the Department initially recommended that mother be provided with six months of additional reunification services for all five children, the Department changed its recommendation shortly before the six-month hearing, based on mother's having adopted a â€
