In re S.S. CA4/3

Filed 1/10/14 In re S.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G048444 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. DP021546, v. DP021547, DP021548, DP021549 & DP021550) MICHELLE S. et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants.

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Michelle S. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ismael S.

Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors.

* * *

Michelle S. (mother) and Ismael S. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights to five children. Mother contends the court erred in denying her petitions to change the order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to this code) without a hearing. (§ 388, subd. (a).) Father does not raise any independent grounds, but merely argues if mother’s appeal is found to have merit, we must also reverse as to him. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment as to each parent.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2011, appellants’ five children, ranging in age from 4 years to 3 months, were detained by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) based on the parents’ domestic violence and unresolved substance abuse. According to SSA’s petition, the parents fought in front of the children. Mother entered a domestic violence shelter, but was forced to leave because she remained in contact with father. In addition, SSA alleged mother used methamphetamines while having sole care and custody of the children and even when breast feeding two of them. On one occasion, mother left the children alone to smoke a cigarette. As to father, the petition alleged he has unresolved problems with both drugs and alcohol, thereby impairing his ability to protect the children. Mother obtained a three-year restraining order against father.