In re A.S. CA2/8

Filed 5/29/15 In re A.S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the B260708 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK57998) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

N.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________________

SUMMARY The mother in this dependency case appeals the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 and terminating parental rights to her son, A.S. We affirm the orders. FACTS A.S., who is now three years old, was detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) on April 3, 2012, shortly after he was born. His mother, who now has six children, has a long history of substance abuse and a long history with the Department. She failed to reunify with four of her older children, who are under legal guardianship. On August 31, 2012, the juvenile court found A.S. to be a dependent child of the court, sustaining jurisdictional allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The court found mother had a history of illicit drug abuse, was a current user of methamphetamine, and used illicit drugs during her pregnancy with A.S. Other sustained allegations were that the four older siblings were receiving permanent services due to mother’s drug abuse, mother and father had a history of domestic violence, and A.S.’s father physically abused A.S.’s older siblings and mother failed to take action to protect the siblings. A.S. was placed with his maternal uncle and the uncle’s wife soon after he was born, and has remained with them throughout the dependency proceedings. They are now his prospective adoptive parents. The dispositional hearing was not held until July 9, 2013. (Meanwhile, mother had relapsed, testing positive for methamphetamine on February 11, 2013, and failing to appear for tests in March and April 2013.) At that time, the court found it was in A.S.’s best interest to set a hearing to select a permanent plan (§ 366.26), and ordered no reunification services, based on mother’s failure to reunify with A.S.’s half siblings after their removal (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)).