In Re Urayna L.

89 Cal.Rptr.2d 437 (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 883 In re URAYNA L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Kimberly L., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B129396. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three.

September 16, 1999. As Modified October 15, 1999. Konrad S. Lee, Riverside, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Lloyd W. Pellman, Los Angeles, County Counsel, and Doraine F. Meyer, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CROSKEY, J.

Kimberly L. (mother) appeals from an order entered January 5, 1999, which terminated her parental rights as to her child, Urayna L., thus freeing Urayna for adoption pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We affirm that order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]

Mother had a substance abuse problem. She had placed Urayna with a relative, but that relative died, which apparently brought Urayna to the attention of Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) when mother's twin boys were born and tested positive for drugs. Mother ended up in jail, and her children, including Urayna, became dependents of the court and were placed in foster care. Services were provided to mother, who did not complete the reunification plan. Time ran out, and the trial court terminated reunification services. Urayna was found to be adoptable, and mother's parental rights were terminated.

At the hearing at which mother's rights were terminated, the trial court had before [438] it a report which included a review, pursuant to section 366.22, subdivision (b)(2), of the amount of and nature of the contact between Urayna and her biological relatives during the time she had been a dependent of the court. This report stated that mother's visits, which were supervised, took place on an average of one or two times a month, that mother had only arranged for one of these visits, and that the others had been arranged by the maternal grandmother, who was the person prompting mother to visit. The report also noted that the minors, including Urayna, were not comfortable with mother during the visits. An earlier report had commented that grandmother was more consistent in visiting the minors than was mother, and would attend visits even if mother missed them. Mother filed timely notice of appeal.