Katherine D. v. Humboldt County Sup. Ct.

Filed 3/22/06 Katherine D. v. Humboldt County Sup. Ct. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Katherine D. (Mother) challenges an order of the Humboldt County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, which set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1] to select a permanent plan for Aaron S. (born April 2002). We deny Mother's petition on the merits.[2]

Background

In 2003 Aaron S. was hospitalized with bruising on his body, scabies and lice. Later, Mother reported to the police that her live-in boyfriend assaulted her and the child. In December 2003 Aaron was observed to have multiple bruises. On December 8, 2003, the Child Welfare Services Division of the county's Health and Human Services Department (Department) initially removed 19-month-old Aaron from Mother's custody, placing him in protective custody. The Department sought to establish dependency jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court entered a temporary detention order on December 11, 2003. On that date, the court first directed the Department to offer Mother predispositional reunification services in the form of parenting instruction, domestic violence counseling, and other counseling services. Also on that date, the court scheduled a further, contested detention hearing and a jurisdictional hearing. A minute order dated December 22, 2003 indicates the Department had by that date returned Aaron to Mother's physical custody. However, the Department again removed Aaron and returned him to foster care on March 23, 2004.

Testimony in the detention hearing began on March 30, 2004, and continued through April 2004. The hearing was continued prior to its completion, however, and eventually the court set the matter for a combined hearing on detention and jurisdiction. It appears the court finally completed the combined hearing on September 29, 2004, when it entered an order that sustained the allegations of an amended section 300 petition and set the matter for a dispositional hearing. After more continuances, the parties reached an agreement concerning Aaron's disposition on February 17, 2005. The court vacated the contested hearing set for that date and directed the parties to submit a proposed dispositional order. The court subsequently entered a dispositional order on April 22, 2005.[3] Meanwhile, on April 19, 2005, the court conducted a six-month status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) On that date it entered findings and orders on all issues relating to the six-month review except visitation. It found, among other things, that Mother was making â€