In re M.L.

Filed 2/14/07  In re M.L. CA5

NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT

THE COURT^*

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.

            Catherine Czar, under appointment by the Courtof Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, DeputyCounty Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Bee M. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter M.L.^[1]  Appellant contendsthe court erred at an earlier stage of these proceedings by finding shereceived reasonable reunification services. Although we deem appellant's contention, at least in part, to be timely underthe circumstances, we nonetheless conclude there is substantial evidence tosupport the trial court's finding.  Because appellant raises no other issue onappeal, we will affirm the order terminating parental rights. 

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

            In August 2004, appellant was arrested on stolen vehicle and drug charges.  Herinability to arrange suitable care for four-year-old M. , in addition toappellant's  addiction to methamphetamine and lack of stable housing, led tothe child's detention and the initiation of these dependency proceedings. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (g).)  

            In November 2004, the Fresno County Superior Court adjudged M.a dependent child of the court and removed her from parental custody.  Although appellant hadyet to make an appearance in the proceedings, the court did order reunificationservices for her.  Those services included parenting classes, substance abuseevaluation and recommended treatment, mental health assessment and recommendedtreatment, and random drug testing.  Visitation with M., however, was suspendeduntil appellant contacted respondent FresnoCounty Department of Children and Family Services (department). Appellant's whereabouts had become unknown to the department as of October2004. 

The First Six Months for Reunification Services

            Appellant's whereabouts remained unknown untilFebruary 2005 when she contacted the department.  On a drug court/probationreferral, she had entered a 30-day inpatient substance abuse program, known asWestcare, in February.  In March 2005, she started parenting classes andtransitional aftercare, as well as recommenced visitation with M.  She alsomoved into a sober living home.  Further, appellant participated in a mentalhealth assessment, which recommended individual therapy.^[2] However, it took one month, from late March to late April, for the departmentto refer appellant for mental health services. 

            Appellant made her first appearance in thedependency proceedings at the April 2005 hearing scheduled for a six-monthstatus review.  The court appointed trial counsel to represent appellant andcontinued its review until later that month so that counsel could prepare. Appellant was also directed to enroll with a drug testing service for randomtesting purposes.

            On the continued hearing date, the court foundthe department provided reasonable services and ordered that services continuefor another six months.  However, the court made its findings and orders in theabsence of appellant and her attorney.  Due to this oversight, the courtsubsequently vacated its findings as to appellant and reconsidered the issue ofreasonable services.  The court determined there was one month of unreasonableservices related to appellant's recommended mental health treatment, butotherwise found that services were reasonable.  Appellant did not appeal thecourt's decision.

The Second Six Months for Reunification Services   

            Between April and June of 2005, appellantactively pursued services and visited with her daughter.  However, sometime inJune, the funding through county probation for appellant's sober living homeceased.  Coincidentally, appellant became a consistent no-show for random drugtesting. 

            In response, the family's social worker/casemanager convened a case staffing on June 23, 2005, with appellant and a countysubstance abuse specialist.  As a result of the staffing, it was decidedappellant needed to resume inpatient treatment at Westcare.  Arrangements weremade for an intake meeting the following day.  Appellant also agreed in writingto complete 60 days of inpatient substance abuse treatment, followed by 60-90days of aftercare, random drug testing until she entered Westcare andthereafter test as needed.

            Appellant never attended the June intake meetingand did not resume random drug testing.  She also stopped attending parenting classes, mental healthcounseling, and visitation with M. as of late June.  As appellant wouldlater admit she had relapsed. 

            The department lost contact with appellant,whose whereabouts were unknown for three months.  It reached a point that thedepartment commenced a due diligence search for her in late September.  Then,on September 30, appellant telephoned the social worker and expressed a desireto â€