In re Mathew L.
Filed 9/14/06 In re Mathew L. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re MATHEW L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MEGAN B., Defendant and Appellant. | A111371 (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ04-6405) |
Appellant Megan B. appeals from a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petition and terminating her parental rights to her son Mathew. Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition for modification because appellant had successfully established a change of circumstances. We reject this contention and affirm the trial court's order.
Factual and Procedural Background
On December 23, 2004, the Del Norte County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). Under section 300, subdivision (b), the petition alleged that the child had suffered, or there was a substantial risk that the child would suffer, physical harm or illness due to: (1) the inability of his parent to adequately supervise the child; (2) the negligent failure to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment; (3) the inability of appellant to provide regular care due to appellant's mental illness. Under section 300, subdivision (j), the petition alleged that the child's sibling had been abused or neglected and there was a substantial risk that the child would be abused or neglected. The petition listed as supporting facts: the parental rights to appellants' six other children had been terminated; appellant had a child welfare history in Ohio and California dating back to 1991; appellant had lost custody of two of minor's half-siblings in Ohio due to physical and emotional abuse; and appellant had severely abused and neglected four older half-siblings in both Ohio and California.
The Department's detention report, filed on December 27, 2004, stated the need for continued detention due to a substantial danger of the child suffering physical or emotional damage and the likelihood that the minor's parents would flee the jurisdiction if Mathew were returned to them. The report also set out an extensive child welfare history that cited, in part, appellant's flight from two counties in Ohio and appellant's failure to comply with the service plans ordered in those counties. An addendum to the detention report filed on December 28, 2004, alleged that appellant fled Florida earlier that same month during a child abuse investigation. The allegations of the Florida investigation included that Tracey L., appellant's current boyfriend, had pulled a knife on appellant during an argument and that appellant threw Mathew at Tracey L.
A contested jurisdictional hearing was held on February 9, 2005, in which the court found true all but one of the allegations of the petition.
On March 8, 2005, the Department filed a disposition report in which it recommended under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2), (10) and (11) that no reunification services be offered. The Department cited appellant's mental disabilities and the prior terminations of reunification services and parental rights for siblings of Mathew. The Department also recommended that further visitation between appellant, Tracey and Mathew be suspended. Following a hearing held on March 30 and April 1, 2005, the court terminated reunification services and appellant's and Tracey's visitation with Mathew was restricted to two hours per week in April and May and one hour per week beginning June 1.
On August 1, 2005, appellant filed a section 388 petition alleging a change in circumstances. The petition sought to vacate the order denying services to appellant and requested a psychological evaluation. The petition asserted changed circumstances that included: Appellant and Tracey received parental training; Tracey obtained regular employment; and appellant and Tracey obtained housing. On August 12, 2005, a section 366.26 report was filed by the Department, as well as an opposition to the petition for modification. The hearing on the section 388 petition was held in conjunction with the section 366.26 hearing on August 19 and 22, 2005. The court denied the petition for rehearing on August 22, terminated the parental rights of appellant, and ordered that Mathew should be placed for adoption.
Discussion
After the denial of a petition under section 388, we review the trial court's decision under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) â€
