In re Diana D.
Filed 1/11/10 In re Diana D. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re DIANA D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B217330 |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KARLA D., Defendant and Appellant. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 70176) |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Timothy M. OCrowley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________
Karla D. (mother) appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter, Diana D. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Because this is an unreported opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will dispense with their recitation here. To the extent they are relevant, we discuss the facts in our resolution of the single issue on appeal, below.
In brief, Diana, born in 2006, was removed from mothers home in September 2007 and declared a dependent child of the court based on mothers history of substance abuse (methamphetamine and amphetamine). The court placed Diana in the home of her maternal grandmother. Mother was awarded family reunification services and allowed twice-weekly monitored visits with Diana, subsequently increased to thrice-weekly.
During the next 22 months mother was in and out of drug rehabilitation programs, failed to refrain from using cocaine and methamphetamine, and her visits with Diana slid from frequent and regular to occasional and sporadic.
In July 2009, the court terminated mothers parental rights and mother filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i),[1]provides that the court has discretion not to terminate parental rights if [t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child because [t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. Mother contends that under this statute, the court should have refrained from terminating her parental rights with Diana because she maintain[ed] contact with her daughter throughout the dependency and continuing contact with [mother] would benefit Diana. We disagree.
Substantial evidence supports the courts finding that mother did not maintain regular visitation with Diana.
From September 2007, when the DCFS removed Diana from mothers home, until May 2008 mother had weekly visits with Diana. The DCFS worker reported that [d]uring [these] visits Mother and Diana play and interact well. [] . . . [] Diana appears to be comfortable in the presence of Mother in that she is able to play with her, run around the room with her and sit next to her when Mother brings toys for Diana.
Beginning in May 2008, however, mother was often late to the visits and sometimes failed to show up at all. In December 2008, the DCFS worker reported that mother had only visited Diana twice in the past six months. The following month the worker reported that neither he nor the grandmother had heard from mother and her whereabouts were unknown. Mother had made no attempts to contact Diana in the past month. At the 12-month review hearing in January 2009, the court found mother had not consistently nor regularly visited Diana and terminated reunification services. Subsequent reports showed that mother visited Diana in February 2009 and sporadically after that. According to grandmother, mother will visit for a couple of weekends and then disappears [sic] for a few weeks.
Contrary to mothers argument, merely maintaining contact with Diana does not trigger the exception to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Rather, the court shall terminate parental rights unless it finds a compelling reason not to because the parent has maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. (Italics added.) Because mother did not satisfy the statutes regular visitation requirement, we need not consider the benefit-to-the-child provision.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
CHANEY, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
