In re D.M.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B190590 ( Super. |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Petitioner and Respondent, v. JEANA M., Objector and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia S. Spear, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Jeana M. appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to her third child, eight-year-old D. She contends the juvenile court erred by finding that D. is adoptable and by failing to apply the exception to adoption set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E).[1] We affirm.
FACTUAL
1. The dependency.
In the fall of 2002, when her fifth child, Christopher, was born, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) learned that Jeana was unable to care for her older children Devin (age 11), Jonathan (age 9), D. (age 3), and Jessica (age 2).[2] Jeana suffered from mood swings, an inability to control her outbursts, and drug abuse. She had entered into a voluntary maintenance contract with the Department which provided services to assist her with the children. However, the Department determined that despite its intervention, the family had failed to participate in the services consistently or to benefit from them, thus putting the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. D., in particular, was very difficult to control. Jonathan stated that Jeana would hit him and Devin. Jonathan reported that he in turn would hit Jessica and D. because they did not behave and Jeana did not appear to Jonathan to care to stop the violence. Jeana was unable to control D. who swore at her.
The Department detained the children in the fall of 2003. Jeana submitted to a section 300 petition that alleged that Jeana hit Jonathan with her fist; on prior occasions she used inappropriate physical and verbal discipline against Devin; and she had a history of substance abuse which interfered with her ability to provide regular care and supervision for the children. Jeana was diagnosed with depressive disorder not otherwise specified. All of these facts placed the children at risk of harm. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b) & (j).) Eventually, the Department placed Devin, Jonathan, and D. with Sonia and Paul G.
In December 2003, the Department detained Jeana's newborn baby J. and filed a separate petition as to her. She was placed in foster care.
2. The psychological evaluation.
The juvenile court ordered Diana M. Elliott, M.D. to conduct a psychological evaluation of Jeana and the children pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to determine whether continued visitation between D., Jeana, and D.'s maternal grandfather was detrimental to D.; whether it would be detrimental to any of the four youngest children if they were placed together in the same foster home; and the nature of the sibling bond between Devin, Jonathan, and the younger children.
Dr. Elliott found that D.'s emotional difficulties and disturbing behaviors were the result of conflict she felt toward her mother and the lack of understanding on the part of the G.'s about how to handle the various problems. Dr. Elliott opined it would be detrimental for the three youngest children to be placed in the same home as D. because D. â€
