In re J.A.

















Filed 9/28/10 In re
J.A. CA3











NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED





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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----






>

In re J.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.R., Defendant and Appellant.	C062024 (Super. Ct. Nos. JD225594, JD225595, JD225596)

C.R., mother of
three children, A.R. (born in 2001), K.A. (born in 2004), and J.A. (born in
2007), appeals from the juvenile court's order denying her petition under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1]
that sought the reinstatement of reunification
services. We shall affirm.

>FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Dependency

In March 2007, the Sacramento County Department of Health and
Human Services (the Department) filed a petition under section 300,
subdivisions (b) and (g), alleging the children were at risk due to mother's
substance abuse problem (dating back to at least 2002) and the parents'
incarceration. Mother had failed to
comply with a voluntary family maintenance plan instituted in January
2007.

The detention
report alleged that mother was on house arrest for possessing stolen property
as of January 2007, had tested positive for marijuana in November 2006
while pregnant with J.A., and was also reported to use crack cocaine and
methamphetamine. Though she denied drug
use, she had not complied with the alcohol and drug assessment required under
her family maintenance plan.

The children were
dirty. The alleged father often hit
mother. The home was known as a drug
house. The parents were arrested in
March 2007 (father for credit card fraud, mother for possession of stolen
property and violating probation); mother's release date was unknown. Both had criminal histories, including multiple
convictions for drug and theft offenses.


The infant child
had a normal health exam, but the two older children had poor hygiene, dental
cavities, and other health problems.

In
April 2007, at the jurisdiction
hearing, the juvenile court found the section 300, subdivision (b),
allegation true, but found insufficient evidence as to the subdivision (g)
allegation. The court ordered continued
placement with the Department and provision of services for mother.

In May 2007,
at the contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed the children
with father, ordered supervised visitation for mother, and required her to
participate in services and regular drug testing.

In early
July 2007, the Department brought a section 387 petition as to all three
children, alleging father continued to use drugs and allowed unsupervised
visitation to mother. Later in
July 2007, the juvenile court ordered the children detained and placed
with the Department. At the end of
July 2007, after a jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court found the
section 387 petition's allegations true, continued placement with the
Department, and ordered services for both parents.

A permanency
report from October 2007, recommended terminating services to father
(still incarcerated with no set release date) and returning the children to
mother's care under dependent supervision.
In the past four months she had made significant progress in her case
plan. Visitation with the children was
going well, and had progressed to unsupervised visits. Mother had complied with her drug testing
program for 135 days, was making progress in therapy, and was considering
ending her relationship with father. She
appeared to love and care for the children deeply and had committed to living clean
and sober. On the other hand, the
children were doing well in their foster placements (J.A. and A.R. in one
foster home, K.A. in another) and had developed attachments to their foster
parents.

An addendum report
in November 2007, stated that the children reported mother had allowed
father to have unauthorized visits with the children, though mother denied
this; as a result, the Department had required her further visits to be
supervised. Mother's therapist reported
that mother was considering separation or divorce from father. Because father was now testing for alcohol
and drugs, the Department recommended six more months of services for him as
well as for mother.

At the permanency
hearing in November 2007, the juvenile court continued services for the
parents, with father ordered to participate in dependency drug court.

Termination of Reunification Services

A permanency
review report in May 2008, recommended terminating services to both
parents. Mother had completed the bulk
of her case plan services, but did not appear to have benefited from them;
father's compliance with services was sporadic and he was incarcerated
periodically.

Despite going
through a substance abuse program, mother still used alcohol, and had not
completed dependency drug court due to failures to test. In February 2008, father beat her while
they were both under the influence of alcohol.


After obtaining
paperwork to file a legal separation, mother decided it was too expensive to
separate from father. Despite the
February 2008 incident, she stayed in contact with father and said she
still loved him.

The children
continued to do well in their foster placements. If reunification failed, the permanent plan
was for the children to be adopted together, though the current foster parents
were unwilling to adopt.

An addendum report
in July 2008, stated that mother was arrested for drunk driving in early
July 2008, and incarcerated with a projected release date in
August 2008; she had also admitted to drinking in March 2008. After over a year of services, she had not
yet completed substance abuse programs or â€