legal newsarticles
jobs
projectsbriefs
 
Home Link Directory Forum Gallery Cases Law BlogsOpportunities
 

In re T.B.

In re T.B.
07/27/06

In re T.B.




Filed 7/26/06 In re T.B. CA1/2





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO














In re T.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.




SOLANO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MISTI C.,


Defendant and Appellant.



A112251


(Solano County


Super. Ct. No. J35339)



Introduction


Misti C., the mother of T.B., appeals from the order of the Solano County Juvenile Court at the six-month review hearing, terminating her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).[1] Appellant contends the court erred in terminating services to her because (1) there was not substantial evidence to support the finding of detriment to the child and (2) she was in substantial compliance with her reunification case plan for the first half of the reunification period and extenuating circumstances excused her noncompliance during the last half of the period. (3) Appellant also contends respondent Solano County Department of Health and Social Services (the department) failed to offer her services tailored to address her needs as a victim of an abusive relationship with the child's father. We shall affirm the order terminating reunification services.


Facts and Procedural Background


On January 31, 2005, a petition was filed under section 300, alleging the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (g) [no provision for support]. The petition alleged that two-year-old T.B. had been found playing unattended outside a Motel 6 in Vacaville, with half-siblings aged four years and one year; the child's father's girlfriend was asleep and could not be roused by the motel management and, when awakened by the police, appeared confused and could not give consistent information about the children and absent parents. Appellant's whereabouts were unknown at the time of filing of the petition. On February 1, 2005, the juvenile court ordered the child detained in foster care.


On February 8, 2005, the department received a referral from a prenatal clinic that appellant had been seen in the clinic for the past month and had twice tested positive for methamphetamine during that month. In February 2005, appellant gave birth to a baby boy, Kelvin S., and left the hospital with the baby three days later against medical advice. Appellant was found hiding in the garage at the residence of Kelvin S.'s father and paternal grandmother. Appellant was arrested pursuant to a bench warrant and Kelvin S. was taken into protective custody. At the May 9, 2005 jurisdictional hearing, the court took jurisdiction over both T.B. and Kelvin S. Appellant admitted to the allegation of section 300, subdivision (g)(1) of the petition as amended in open court. As to T.B., the sustained (g)(1) allegation of the petition read: â€





Description Order regarding terminating reunification services on true finding of allegation of no provision for support, failure to protect and Appellant's whereabouts were unknown at the time of filing of the petition.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | Contacts | Submit New Article | Site Leaders | Search
    © 2005 Fearnotlaw.com