In re Jasmine G.
Filed 6/8/06 In re Jasmine G. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re JASMINE G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHARI G., Defendant and Appellant. | F049620 (Super. Ct. No. 0091162-6)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Laura D. Pedicini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Shari G. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter Jasmine.[1] Appellant's appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated March 21, 2006, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated March 23, 2006, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief. Thereafter, appellant filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, she criticizes her court-appointed trial counsel for not presenting positive evidence during the termination hearing with regard to her drug recovery and other self-improvement efforts. She also contends her trial counsel should have challenged the accuracy of a bonding study which was submitted to the court and helped the court to see that she was a fit mother. As discussed below, we conclude appellant's claims do not amount to arguable issues.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Fresno County Superior Court adjudged Jasmine G. a dependent child and removed her from appellant's custody in August 2005. The court based its exercise of jurisdiction on appellant's methamphetamine abuse which placed the toddler-aged child at risk of serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)) and appellant's prior neglect of Jasmine G.'s five half-siblings (§ 300, subd. (j)). Given appellant's failure to reunify with her three eldest children and her subsequent loss of parental rights as to her fourth and fifth children, the superior court denied appellant reunification services as to Jasmine G. (§ 361.5, subd. (10) & (11).) In turn, the court set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child. It also granted a request by appellant's trial counsel for a bonding study to include appellant, Jasmine G. and her foster parents.
Thereafter, the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) assessed Jasmine G. as adoptable and recommended the court terminate parental rights. Attached to the department's assessment was the written bonding study which disclosed Jasmine and appellant did not share a parent/child relationship and there was no positive emotional attachment between the child and appellant.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, appellant, through her trial counsel, petitioned the court under section 388 to vacate the hearing and institute reunification services. In the petition, appellant spelled out her efforts to improve her circumstances; she did not address, however, why reunification efforts at this point in the proceedings would be in the child's best interests.
The court denied the section 388 petition following argument and thereafter heard the testimony of appellant. She testified to her regular visitation with Jasmine and her (appellant's) belief that it would be beneficial to Jasmine G. to have ongoing visits. In appellant's estimation, it would be harmful to Jasmine G. if the visits stopped because â€
