In re Jeremy E.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re JEREMY E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA O., Defendant and Appellant. | C053442 (Super. |
Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court's orders denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by denying her petition for modification. We affirm.
FACTUAL
According to a dependency petition filed in November 2005, appellant gave birth to the minor after using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy, and she had failed to reunify with two other children who had been made dependents of the court in the state of
At a jurisdictional hearing in February 2006, the juvenile court sustained the petition in relevant part and denied appellant reunification services based on her failure to reunify with her other children (§ 361.5(b)(10)) and her chronic substance abuse and resistance to prior court-ordered treatment (361.5(b)(13)). The court set the matter for a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the minor pursuant to section 366.26.
According to a report filed by DHHS in June 2006, the minor was bonded with his foster parents, where he had been placed since birth, and his foster parents wanted to adopt him. Meanwhile, appellant visited the minor weekly completed a parenting class, was regularly drug tested with negative results and participated in outpatient programs to address substance abuse and other issues. Based on these efforts, appellant filed a petition for modification, seeking placement of the minor with her or reunification services. The court set appellant's petition for a hearing on the same date as the section 366.26 hearing.
At the August 2006 hearing on appellant's petition, appellant testified about her participation in services since the prior hearing and what she had learned from the various services. She acknowledged she had not participated in services in her prior dependency case but maintained she was now ready to change. Appellant also testified the minor recognized her at visits and smiled and giggled when he saw her.
Acknowledging appellant's efforts constituted â€
