In re Mia A. CA2/6

Filed 7/14/16 In re Mia A. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re MIA A., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B269838 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 1436204) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CORINA G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Corina G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s December 17, 2015 orders (1) terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Mia A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26);1 and (2) denying her motion to set aside a prior order terminating reunification services (§ 388, subd. (a)). We appointed counsel to represent Mother on appeal. On April 25, 2016, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Counsel found no arguable issues and asked that we exercise our discretion to allow Mother to personally file a supplemental brief. We notified Mother that she had 30 days

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

within which to submit any contentions she wished us to consider, and that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of her appeal as abandoned. Mother filed a letter on May 24, 2016, raising the following contentions for our consideration: (1) she has improved in her addiction recovery and now believes she has the ability to take care of her daughter; (2) her daughter would benefit by being raised by her natural mother; and (3) when she agreed to the termination of reunification services, she did not understand the consequences of doing so. We affirm. BACKGROUND Mia was born with health problems caused by prenatal exposure to drugs. The juvenile court declared Mia a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services for Mother. At the six-month review hearing, the Santa Barbara County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) recommended terminating reunification services on grounds that Mother remained unable to care for Mia and reunification was unlikely within the next six months. Mother agreed not to contest the recommendation in exchange for more frequent visits with Mia. Although Mother stated she intended to file a motion to modify the court’s order at a later time, she acknowledged that she understood there was “no promise or guarantee” that reunification services would be reinstated. The juvenile court found adequate services had been provided and Mother’s progress in reunification was minimal. The court terminated reunification services. Thereafter, the juvenile court found Mia was adoptable and terminated Mother’s parental rights. The court disagreed with Mother’s contention that Mia would benefit from a continued relationship with her, and deemed insufficient Mother’s offer of proof that she was doing well in recovery and Mia had responded positively to her during supervised visits. Mother filed a motion under section 388, subdivision (a), to reinstate reunification services, arguing (1) she had one of her other children living with her in a residential treatment program; (2) she was doing well in the program; (3) she had nine months of sobriety; (4) she was better able to take care of Mia, who was no longer medically fragile; and (5) reunification would allow Mia to develop relationships with her