In re Jasmine V.


Filed 6/1/11 In re Jasmine V. CA2/3



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re JASMINE V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B226422 (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA R., et al., Defendant and Appellant.	Super. Ct. No. CK33130)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, A. Trendacosta, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, for Mother, Maria R.
Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, for Father, Alfredo V.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________
In this dependency matter (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.),[1] the mother of the six dependent children in the case challenges the termination of her parental rights to five of those children. The father of five of the children has also appealed. He does not contend that error was committed when his own parental rights were terminated. Rather, he has joined in the mother's contentions and arguments respecting the termination of her parental rights to the extent those contentions and arguments inure to his benefit, and he contends that if her parental rights are reinstated then his parental rights must also be reinstated. The petitioner in the case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), contends that both parents have failed to present a convincing argument for relief.
The appeal presents the question whether the Department provided proper section 366.26 notice to the mother for termination of her parental rights. Our review of the appellate record convinces us that notice was proper. Therefore, the terminating order will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Initial Dependency Proceedings for the Minors
When this case commenced in May of 2007 with the filing of the section 300 dependency petition, there were five minors of concern to the dependency court. They are Freddy V., who was nine years old at that time, Jasmine V., who was five, Raymond V. who was three, David V. who was two, and Ruby V. who was just 11 months old.
Freddy already had an open dependency case which began in March of 1998. In 1999 the dependency court issued a protective custody warrant for Freddy and an arrest warrant for Freddy's parents because Freddy had been under a home of parent court order and his parents had disappeared with him. The sustained allegation in Freddy's own section 300 petition is that his home was found to be in a filthy and unsanitary condition, to have no running water, proper sewage drainage, plumbing, or electricity, to have garbage waste throughout the home, to have dirty walls made of broken dry wall with holes and cracks, and to be without food. Because of Freddy's earlier dependency petition, the Department filed a section 342 subsequent petition for him when it filed the section 300 petition for his siblings.
The parents of the five minors are Maria R. (Mother) and Alfredo V. (Father). Father was incarcerated in the Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles when the section 342 and 300 petitions were filed, having been arrested in August of 2006 for domestic violence and an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for possession of methamphetamine. He was also facing a homicide charge.[2]
The minors were detained by the dependency court on May 30, 2007. At their adjudication/disposition hearing on September 14, 2007, the court sustained the following allegations: (1) the parents failed to follow court orders in minor Freddy's dependency case to keep the Department and the court advised of the minor's whereabouts while under the court's supervision and such action by the parents endangered the minor's physical and emotional safety, created a detrimental home environment , and placed the minor at risk of harm; (2) in May 2007 all of the minors were found to be living in a filthy and unhygienic condition; they had not been bathed for several days, were not wearing underwear, David's diaper had not been changed and he had a large amount of feces on his buttocks, and this places the minors at risk of harm;[3] and (3) the parents have a history of domestic violence which also places the children at risk of harm. The court declared that Freddy would remain a dependent child of the court and it terminated the home of parent order that it had issued for him in 1999. The other children were declared dependents of the court, and physical custody of all five children was taken from the parents. Reunification services and monitored visits were ordered.
2. Summary of Events between Disposition and Termination of
Parental Rights

a. Mother's Participation in the Case
Mother's visits with the minors were sporadic. There were periods of no visitation and periods of regular visitation. Eventually the visits tapered off to her not visiting the children at all. Her last visit with them was in March of 2009. Her case plan called for a parent education program and individual counseling to address case issues. She completed the parenting class. However, over the course of the case she steadfastly refused to attend a free domestic violence program even though the court sustained the allegation of domestic violence. Her attendance at the low cost individual counseling she was able to secure was sporadic because she said she could not afford the counseling on a regular basis. She lived with and associated with the paternal grandparents who had failed to stop their son from torturing and killing the defenseless three-year-old child. She allowed the paternal grandparents to control her actions in the instant case even though the grandparents' actions were detrimental to the minors and to Mother's ability to be reunited with the children.[4] Mother also indicated her desire to resume living with Father even though he committed domestic violence against her and he was convicted of first degree murder.
Although she knew the telephone numbers of the Department and her own attorney, there were long periods of time during which Mother refrained from communicating with them even though it hindered her position in the case. The Department's reports often stated that Mother's whereabouts were â€