In re K.G.
Filed 10/15/10 In re K.G. CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
In re K.G., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B223681
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK76976)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.T.,
Objector and Appellant.
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Rehm,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Andrea
Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel,
Melinda S. White-Svec, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
K.T.,
mother, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services with her son, now
nearly three-year-old K.G. Mother
contends that the six months of reunification services to which she was
entitled did not commence to run as long as either she or K.G.'s father, B.G.,
had custody of K.G. Mother further
contends that the juvenile court applied the incorrect legal standard in
terminating her reunification services.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 2009, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) filed a petition on behalf of K.G. under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).[1] At the detention hearing on April 22 and 23,
2009, the juvenile court found a prima case for detaining K.G. The juvenile court released K.G. to father
with the understanding that father was to make arrangements for K.G. to reside
with paternal grandmother. The juvenile
court ordered family reunification services for mother and father and set the
matter for a jurisdiction and dispositional hearing on June 8, 2009.
On June 8, 2009, the juvenile court
dismissed the original petition and the Department filed an amended petition on
K.G.'s behalf under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (g). The juvenile court set the matter for an
adjudication and contested dispositional hearing on July 6, 2009.
At the July 6, 2009, jurisdiction and dispositional hearing,
the juvenile court found father to be K.G.'s presumed father. Mother waived her rights and pleaded no
contest to the amended petition. The
juvenile court sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (b) that
mother purchased illicit drugs while K.G. was in her care and supervision,
mother transported the child in a car without a proper car seat, mother had an
unresolved history of substance abuse, and father had a history of drug abuse
and was currently using marijuana. The
juvenile court declared K.G. to be a dependent of the court.
The
juvenile court placed K.G. with father on the condition that father make
arrangements for K.G. to live with paternal grandmother. The juvenile court ordered family
reunification services for mother and family maintenance services for
father. Mother and father were ordered
to participate in Department-approved programs of parenting education,
individual counseling, and drug rehabilitation with weekly testing. Mother and father were granted twice-weekly,
monitored visits.
On September
30, 2009, the Department filed a supplemental
petition under section 387, alleging that on September 15, 2009, father was
incarcerated with charges of robbery, battery with serious bodily injury, and
corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant; and that father had failed to comply
with substance abuse rehabilitation, random drug testing, parental counseling,
and individual counseling. At the
detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining
K.G. The juvenile court found that the
prior disposition order had not been effective in protecting K.G., modified the
order that placed K.G. with father, and detained K.G. in foster care.
At the December 7, 2009, jurisdiction and
contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court dismissed the allegation
concerning father's incarceration and sustained the allegation that father had
failed to comply with the case plan. The
juvenile court terminated the order placing K.G. with father and ordered K.G.
placed with paternal great grandmother.
Mother was to be provided with transportation funds for visitation. K.G. was placed with paternal great
grandmother on December 11, 2009.
The
Department's January 5, 2010,
Status Review Report states that mother had served jail time for, and was on
probation for, welfare fraud. The
reports states that at the beginning of the case, mother visited K.G.
frequently and that the visits went well.
In recent months, however, mother's visits had decreased dramatically. Mother scheduled visits but did not show up
and showed up for unscheduled visits.
Mother acknowledged that she had not visited K.G. as regularly as she
once had, stating that she believed that K.G. was more attached to â€
| Description | K.T., mother, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services with her son, now nearly three-year-old K.G. Mother contends that the six months of reunification services to which she was entitled did not commence to run as long as either she or K.G.'s father, B.G., had custody of K.G. Mother further contends that the juvenile court applied the incorrect legal standard in terminating her reunification services. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
