In Re Sherman M.

39 Cal.App.3d 40 (1974) 113 Cal. Rptr. 847 In re SHERMAN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

HELEN JOYCE BEITEL, Objector and Appellant.

Docket No. 42198. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

May 8, 1974. [41] COUNSEL

Philip L. Goar, Gerald Blank and W. Kenneth Rice for Objector and Appellant.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, and Paul T. Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

OPINION

BEACH, J.

This is an appeal by the natural mother of the subject four-year-old minor from an order and judgment of the superior court granting the respondent's petition that the minor be freed from custody and control of appellant in order that the minor might be adopted. The foster family with which he now lives, and has lived since two months of age, seeks to adopt him. The judgment of the superior court was made pursuant to California Civil Code section 232, subdivision (c).

FACTS

The child Sherman M. lived with his mother (appellant) for about one month after his birth. Other than that he has not lived with appellant.

At the age of one month he began living with a series of friends and relatives of the natural father, finally being placed in his present home. [42] This placement was made because of appellant's heavy addiction to alcohol and consequent inability to care for the child. At about age nine months Sherman was made a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 600, subdivision (a), because he had no parent exercising proper and effective care of him. This was due to the mother's excessive use of alcohol. It was ordered that the child be suitably placed in his then foster home. His dependency was continued up to the time of trial because the appellant was unable to provide a home for him due to her continued heavy use of alcohol, and the resulting inability to care for the child. At the trial of this matter, petitioner presented evidence that the appellant had been indulging in the continued, frequent and heavy use of alcohol up to the trial and that appellant had not been cured of her alcoholism.