In re Darlene O.. CA2/5

Filed 2/25/13In re Darlene O.. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re DARLENE O., a Person Coming B241664 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK82365)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KELSEY R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jacqueline Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Cristina Gabrielidis Lechman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________

Kelsey R. (mother) appeals the juvenile court order terminating parental rights to her three-year-old daughter, Darlene O. Mother maintains that the juvenile court erred in concluding that she had failed to establish that the so-called "beneficial-relationship" exception to termination of parental rights applied to the circumstances of this dependency proceeding. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Darlene was born in September 2009 to 16-year-old mother, a dependent of the juvenile court; Darlene resided with mother in the latter's foster care placement. In the early months of Darlene's life, mother attended school during the day and picked Darlene up from daycare after school. On three separate occasions, mother failed to pick Darlene up from daycare, and returned late to her foster home. The fourth time mother failed to pick Darlene up, she did not return to the foster home. Her foster mother filed a missing person report, and on May 20, 2010, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on Darlene's behalf, alleging neglect and failure to provide under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (b) and (g). At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case that Darlene was described by section 300. The court removed Darlene from mother's custody and ordered her detained. Mother was granted reunification services and monitored visitation a minimum of three times a week. The court also ordered a psychotropic medication evaluation, drug testing, individual counseling and parenting classes. Aside from mother's negative drug tests, she did not seem to benefit greatly from reunification services. Her foster mother described her overall behavior as childish; she did poorly in school, flaunted her curfew and went missing from her placement. Her visits with Darlene were sporadic, and she lacked appropriate parenting skills. For instance, when Darlene cried, mother got frustrated and would simply walk away from the child.