In re R.D.

Filed 6/15/06 In re R.D. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald Kreber, Judge. Affirmed.

Sharon Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Beth L. Lewis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for the Minor.

Ursula P. appeals from the juvenile court's orders (1) denying her petition made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,^[1] for an order reversing its prior denial of reunification services for her and her daughter, R. D.; and (2) terminating her parental rights to R. D. Ursula makes only one argument in connection with both orders: She asserts the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition, in light of the significant changes she has made in her lifestyle in the time since R. D. was detained and the bond she has developed with R. D. Reversing the first order and directing the juvenile court to provide her with reunification services would, of necessity, require reversal of the termination order as well.

We are unpersuaded by Ursula's argument. In light of Ursula's past history of accomplishing short-term rehabilitations from her self-described pattern of â€