In re Frank G.


Filed 6/1/11 In re Frank G. CA2/4



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re FRANK G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B227070
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.P., Defendant and Appellant.	(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK72581)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David R. Fields, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel.

This appeal concerns Frank G., the youngest of mother's six children detained by the Department of Children and Family Services when found alone in a motel room in the middle of the night with access to rock cocaine. The other children are not involved in this appeal. Mother A.P. appeals from the court's order terminating her parental rights to Frank. She challenges the court's finding that the parent-child and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption did not apply. We find substantial evidence to support the court's order and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Frank was two months old when law enforcement officers found him and five siblings (ages 3 to 12 years old) alone in a motel room at 2:00 a.m. Rock cocaine was found in mother's purse in the room. When mother and Frank's father returned at 3:00 a.m., a plastic bag with residue of rock cocaine was found during a search of Frank's father.^[1] The officers arrested mother for possession of drugs and Frank's father for child endangerment. The children were taken into protective custody and the eldest five were placed in foster care. The social worker observed blood in Frank's stool and he was hospitalized for an infection.
The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition on April 14, 2008 alleging that the minors came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.^[2] Mother had a history of three substantiated referrals to the Department since 1998. She and her children received family maintenance services from July 14, 2005 to May 2, 2006. Another son of mother, Mark S., was receiving permanent placement services under a legal guardianship in Merced County.
Mother and Frank's father waived trial and submitted on the amended petition. The court sustained four counts of the petition relevant to Frank G. as amended. The children were declared dependents of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). The court found by clear and convincing evidence that, as to mother, there was a substantial danger to the childrens' physical health, safety and emotional well-being if they were returned home to her. Two of the children were released to their father (not Frank's father). Frank and the remaining children were detained and placed in separate foster homes. Mother was ordered to have monitored visits, and family reunification services including drug rehabilitation with random testing, parenting classes, and individual counseling. The Department was given discretion to liberalize mother's monitored visitation.
Frank was initially placed in the home of Ms. T., and in September 2008 Frank was placed in the home of his paternal aunt where he did well. Mother suffered a nervous breakdown one week before completing a 90-day rehabilitation program and was hospitalized until October 6, 2008. As of November 12, 2008, mother had not yet enrolled in outpatient services, parenting education classes, and individual counseling. She had randomly tested negative for drugs while in the rehabilitation program. Mother had three visits with Frank and some of his siblings in May, July, and August of 2008. Visitation was suspended while mother received in-patient mental health care. The Department recommended that mother be offered an additional six months of family reunification services. On November 12, 2008, the juvenile court found mother in partial compliance with her program and services were ordered to continue through May 13, 2009.
Mother's compliance with her program improved in early 2009. The Department allowed her to have unmonitored visits. Mother was in a residential treatment program receiving mental health services and participating in parenting education and individual counseling. She had tested negative for drugs. Frank was thriving in the home of his aunt and his developmental, medical, emotional, and basic needs were being met. He had regular contact and visitation with paternal relatives and siblings. Mother's unmonitored day visits with Frank and his siblings D.C. and A.G. were liberalized to unmonitored overnight visits in late March 2009 for every other Saturday. On alternate weekends, mother visited the children at their respective placements. The caregiver for Frank reported that he did not demonstrate any behaviors causing concern after visits.
In light of mother's progress, the Department suggested that the children gradually be returned to the home of the mother at intervals, beginning with D.C., with family preservation services to be provided. The court adopted that suggestion as its order, ordering D.C. returned to mother at her residential treatment facility.
By mid-2009, mother's circumstances had deteriorated. She was terminated from her residential treatment facility when she and D.C. were disruptive. An investigation was conducted regarding allegations of child abuse against D.C. and he was hospitalized due to concern he could harm himself as a result of negative interactions with mother. As of the July 20, 2009 interim review report, mother and D.C. had been living together at a motel for six weeks with no permanent living arrangement. The Department was attempting to locate housing. These developments set back the timelines for returning the remaining three children, including Frank, to mother.
Mother had positive drug tests in July, August, September, and October 2009. Mother attributed this to a relapse, but said she was still committed to remaining sober for her children and had attended parenting classes and participated in family preservation services. She was in full compliance with parenting education and individual counseling. Mother continued to have unmonitored overnight visits with A.G. and Frank on weekends. The children exhibited appropriate behavior after these visits. The Department recommended that reunification services for mother with Frank, A.G., and J.A. be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be held to select and implement a permanent plan. In October 2009, mother continued to struggle with housing. She was then in transitional housing available to her and her children for only five months. Frank remained placed with his paternal aunt to whom he had a significant attachment. She made the child available for regular visits with mother and assisted in maintaining family relationships.
A contested 18-month hearing was held on December 10, 2009. Mother testified that she wanted all her children returned to her custody. She testified that her boyfriend of nearly a year was not left alone with the children, did not spend the night, and had not submitted to Live Scan. She was trying to find affordable permanent housing. The Department said it could not recommend returning Frank and his two siblings to mother's custody. It noted that although mother was in her third rehabilitation program, she testified that she did not currently have a problem with substance abuse. There was a concern that returning the three other children would jeopardize D.C.'s placement with mother and her recovery. Since mother had been given 18 months of services, the Department could not recommend continued reunification services and felt it best to terminate reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26.
Counsel for the children agreed with the Department's recommendation. He noted mother's difficulty with having D.C. in her custody, and raised the concern that she would be overwhelmed if the other children were placed with her. Counsel for the children referred to the October 2009 report in which mother had explained her drug relapse was caused by stress related to the return of D.C. to her custody. He was also concerned about mother's unstable housing situation.
The juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that return of Frank and his siblings to mother's custody would be detrimental. Reunification services as to Frank, A.G., and J.A. were terminated. All visitation orders were maintained in full force and effect. The court expressed hope that mother would resolve the issues with her boyfriend's contact with the children, obtain permanent housing, and continue to test clean for drugs. If she did so, the court suggested her counsel file a section 388 petition, but observed that mother was â€