In re Vanessa C.
Filed 7/18/06 In re Vanessa C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 VANESSA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMAAL C., Defendant and Appellant. | F049246
(Super. Ct. No. JD101330)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Jamaal C. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his daughter Vanessa.[1] He disputes a court finding that Vanessa was likely to be adopted. On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
In August 2003, respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (the department) detained then-five-year-old Vanessa as well as her two younger brothers and initiated the underlying proceedings following the arrest of the children's mother. Appellant already was in custody on rape charges. In addition to both parents' incarcerated status and inability to provide for the children's care (§ 300, subd. (g)), the children were at risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to their mother's considerable neglect, caused in part by her drug abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)). The following month, the Kern County Superior Court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and adjudged them dependents as well as formally removed them from parental custody.
Despite court-ordered reunification services for the mother, she made little effort towards reunification other than to occasionally visit her children.[2] In March 2004, the court terminated reunification efforts and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for each of the three children.
Notably, earlier that same month, the department had removed Vanessa and one of her brothers from their foster home because it was â€
