In re Ashante N.
Filed 7/24/06 In re Ashante N. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ASHANTE N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CATHERINE N., Defendant and Appellant. | F049497
(Super. Ct. No. JD104083)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Juvenile Court Referee.
Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Catherine N. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her three-year-old daughter, Ashante.[1] Appellant contends the court erred by not finding termination would be detrimental to the child based on her relationship with appellant (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Reports of domestic violence between appellant and the child's father as well as appellant's negligent care of the child brought 21-month-old Ashante to the attention of respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (the department) in June 2004. The Kern County Superior Court subsequently exercised its dependency jurisdiction (§ 300, subd. (b)) over Ashante, adjudged her a dependent child, and removed her from parental custody.
During the first six months of reunification efforts, appellant took advantage of court-ordered services, including domestic-violence-as-a-victim counseling, parent training, random drug tests, and visitation with Ashante. Visitation was supervised and occurred weekly for two hours. Based on appellant's moderate progress, the department apparently removed the supervision requirement for visits. In addition, the court, at a January 2005 review hearing, continued services for an additional six months with the understanding that, if appropriate, the court would review the case sooner to determine whether Ashante and appellant could be reunited.
An encouraging progress report from appellant's counselor in March 2005 led the department to increase the length and frequency of appellant's visits with Ashante to four hours, three-times-a-week. However, appellant had no contact with her counseling services after the encouraging progress report. Not only did she stop counseling, she also failed to submit to random drug tests starting in March. Her visits also became sporadic and she did not spend the fully-allotted time for visits with Ashante.
These events led the department to reinstitute supervised, once-a-week visits and to recommend that the court terminate reunification efforts. To explain her sudden non-participation in services, appellant claimed she felt overwhelmed.
In August 2005, the court terminated services and set the section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for Ashante. The court also ordered, apparently based on the parties' off-the-record agreement, that visitation at a more frequent rate of three-times-a-week could resume. Notably, after the order for more frequent visitation, appellant attended visits approximately twice-a-month and often rescheduled or cancelled visits.
In anticipation of the section 366.26 hearing, the department prepared a social study, assessing Ashante as adoptable and recommending that the court terminate parental rights. The child's caregivers were committed to adopting her and were identified by the department as the child's prospective adoptive parents. The couple had known Ashante since she was six months old. Prior to the child's detention and placement with the couple, they regularly provided child care for her in their home.
Relevant to this appeal, the department reported visitation had been positive and both appellant and Ashante appeared to enjoy the visits. At the beginning of the first supervised visit in June 2004, Ashante went straight to her mother and was happy to see her. At the end of the visit, appellant cried; however, Ashante showed little distress. During a July 2004 visit, Ashante threw tantrums during much of the visit. After saying goodbye, Ashante began crying, â€
