In re X.H. CA2/1

Filed 7/28/14 In re X.H. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re X.H., a Person Coming Under the B253504 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK87594)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KAREN R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Annabelle Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________________

Karen R. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights over her child, X.H., born in March 2012. The sole issue on appeal is whether the order should be reversed because the court erroneously denied Mother and X.H. reunification services. (See In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 210, 222.) We affirm the order terminating parental rights. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW X.H. was born prematurely with several significant physical problems. Although X.H. did not test positive for illegal drugs at birth, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took her into custody because her one-year-old brother Kevin had been declared a dependent child due to his being born with drugs in his system and based on evidence that Mother was a current drug user. At the detention hearing in March 2012, the court ordered the DCFS to provide Mother and X.H. with family reunification services; to provide Mother with the medical training she needed to care for X.H.; and to arrange weekly random drug testing for Mother. The record does not show that DCFS provided Mother with the court-ordered reunification services or medical training. The jurisdictional hearing for X.H. and the permanency planning hearing for X.H.’s brother Kevin were held together in January 2013. Mother did not attend. The court terminated reunification services and Mother’s parental rights with respect to Kevin. The court sustained the dependency petition as to X.H. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1 on the ground that Mother’s methamphetamine use rendered her incapable of providing regular care to her daughter. Following that ruling, the DCFS asked the court to deny Mother family reunification services with X.H. on the ground that reunification services and parental rights over X.H.’s sibling, Kevin, had been terminated and Mother had “not made a reasonable effort