In re C.C
Filed 9/13/06 In re C.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E040565 (Super.Ct.No. J199531) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Patrick J. Morris, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.M.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant C.C.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
C.C. (father) and E.M. (mother), the parents of C.C. (child) who is presently not quite two years old, appeal from an order of the dependency court terminating their parental rights. The child has two half siblings by a different father who are not the subject of this appeal.[1]
At the time of the child's birth his siblings were dependents of the court. The child was allowed to remain with mother in a residential drug rehabilitation program as long as she remained in the program. Mother was asked to leave the program, and she became homeless.
The Department of Children's Services then filed a petition on the child's behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).[2] It alleged mother has a long history of drug abuse and mental health problems that impact her ability to care and support the child; that father has a long history of drug abuse and a history of domestic violence toward mother; and that mother and father were not able to provide housing for the child. It further alleged that the child's half siblings were already dependents of the court. Mother was bipolar and, paradoxically, was resistant to taking drugs for it while using illicit drugs recreationally. Father has an extensive criminal history and was on parole for drug-related charges at the time the child was detained.
Prior to the jurisdictional hearing the child was placed with a paternal aunt. The child remains there, and the aunt wishes to adopt the child.
A combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on March 29, 2005. The petition was amended, and the court sustained the petition. The child was declared a dependent of the court, and a service plan was established for mother and father.
A report prepared for the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd, (e)) and filed September 20, 2005, stated that during the review period neither mother nor father had participated in the reunification plan despite referrals. They were homeless; although, they had received motel vouchers. Father had been jailed from May through August on a parole violation. He failed to drug test but admitted that he had used drugs twice during the reporting period. He was focused on finding full-time employment and had not been able to actively engage in his service plan. Mother had switched to several plans, but had not completed any. She had two psychiatric hospitalizations during the period and was then taking her medications. The parents visited sporadically in March and April 2005. They were under the influence during three of those visits. Both parents admitted that they were not then ready to take custody of the child. The report recommended that reunification services be terminated and the case set for a selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.)
The contested six-month hearing was held on October 21, 2005. Neither parent appeared for the hearing. The court terminated reunification services and referred the case for a selection and implementation hearing. The court directed the clerk to mail notice of the right to seek writ review of the court's orders and findings to the parents. The clerk did mail notice to the parents at their addresses of record, but they were both returned as not deliverable. Neither parent sought writ review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a).)
The selection and implementation hearing was held on March 30, 2006. Mother did not attend. Father was present in custody. He was then incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center on a Proposition 36 commitment. Neither parent had visited the child since September 16, 2005, nor had they telephoned the aunt to inquire about the child. The aunt was committed to adopting the child. Father testified and requested that the court not order a plan of adoption.
The court terminated the parental rights of the parents and ordered a plan of adoption.
Mother and father have appealed, and at their request we have appointed counsel to represent them. Both counsel have filed no issue briefs pursuant to 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 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. The father has done so, but mother has not. We have read and considered it.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Miller
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1] These children are residing with their legal guardian in northern California. Their dependency has been terminated. The child's prospective adoptive mother agrees with postadoptive visitation and contact with these half siblings as does their legal guardian.
