In re Aaron M.
Filed 6/8/06 In re Aaron M. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re AARON M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.L., Defendant and Appellant. | E039489 (Super.Ct.Nos. J168666, J168667) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mother, the appellant in this action, came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (the Department ) in May 2000, when the Department filed Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)[1] petitions on behalf of mother's four children, Aaron, A.M., and two other siblings, the children were taken into protective custody.[2]
At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing held May 23, 2000, the court sustained the allegations of the petition, declared the minors dependents, and ordered reunification services for Mother. Mother completed enough of her reunification plan so that her two older children were returned to her. However, she was not able to regain custody of Aaron and A.M. (the minors), whose medical conditions made their care exacting and difficult.
The minors early on in the pendency of the case were placed in a foster home with caretakers who had experience in dealing with medically fragile children. These foster parents became the minors' legal guardians on April 29, 2002. The dependency was terminated, and mother was to have visitation with the minors twice a month. For a brief time the dependency was reinstated to assure funding for continued medical support of the minors.
A postpermanent review was set for March 24, 2003. The Department recommended the minors remain in legal guardianship. In June 2003, the foster parents secured funding for the minors' medical care, and the court once again terminated the dependency with the minors remaining with their legal guardians, the foster parents.
Mother's section 388 petition filed December 7, 2004, requested she be reunified with the minors and termination of the guardianship. This petition was denied by the court. Mother appealed the denial of her petition (case No. E037473), and this court affirmed the trial court's order in its opinion filed November 8, 2005.
The foster parents, having now had the minors in their care for five years, sought adoption of the minors, and on May 9, 2005, the Department filed a request for modification of the permanent plan to adoption and reinstatement of the dependency. The court reinstated the dependency, and on October 5, 2005, the Department filed an adoption assessment, recommending the minors be freed for adoption.
The Department's report indicated the minors were receiving quality medical care in the home of their guardians. Minors had not visited with mother since November 2004; after those visits, the minors would act out sexually and hoard food. The minors desired to remain with their guardians with whom they have lived since they were two and four years old. The minors also appeared to be thriving under their guardians' care.
On December 8, 2005, the section 366.26 hearing was held, and mother objected to the recommendations of the Department. The court, finding the minors adoptable and no exceptions under the code applicable, terminated mother's parental rights.
Mother appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Appellate counsel submitted a brief under the authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We have invited Mother to file a supplemental brief, and she has not done so.
Even though we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we have done so. We have completed that review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P.J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Apartment Manager Attorneys.
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise designated.
[2] Only Aaron and A.M. are the subjects of this appeal. This is mother's second appeal in this matter. In case No. E037473, mother appealed from the summary denial of her petition to set aside an order establishing a guardianship for A.M. and Aaron. On November 8, 2005, this court affirmed the trial court's order establishing the guardianship.
