In re Michael H. CA2/6

Filed 5/13/13 In re Michael H. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MICHAEL H., et al., Persons Coming 2d Juv. No. B244671 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J068242, J068243) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

INEZ P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Inez P. (mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her minor children Michael H. and M.H., and selecting a permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother contends her due process rights were violated because she was not given notice of the date of the continued section 366.26 hearing. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 22, 2011, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed section 300 petitions as to newborn M.H. and her one-year-old brother Michael.

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

The petition alleged that both mother and the children's father, Michael H., Sr.,2 had a significant history of substance abuse and that M.H. was born prenatally exposed to methamphetamine. It was further alleged that father was unable to care for the children by reason of his incarceration. The court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services for both parents. In its six-month review report, HSA recommended that parents begin an extended visit with the children. HSA reported that both parents had completed parenting classes along with the initial phase of a residential drug treatment program, had provided clean drug tests, and were participating in counseling and attending AA/NA meetings. As a condition of the extended visit, the parents were to continue participating in the next phase of their residential treatment program. The court ordered continued services and gave HSA discretion to begin its recommended extended visit. The court made clear that the children would be returned to foster care if the parents left the treatment program prior to completion. The extended visit began at the beginning of October 2011. On October 19, mother tried to leave the program with the children but was stopped by the police. On November 14, 2011, a program staff member was transporting the family in a van when she noticed that mother had not properly buckled M.H.'s car seat. The staff member pulled over and counseled mother and father on the proper way to buckle the seat. Mother and father were angered by this, so they got out of the van and simply walked away, leaving both children behind. Four days later, the social worker arranged for the parents to return to the program on the condition that they accept responsibility for their actions. Both parents refused, insisting that the staff member was to blame. On November 25, 2011, mother was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine. After leaving the treatment program, she missed four of the five required drug tests and father missed all of them. Of the 11 possible visits with the children, mother attended five and father attended only one. Mother did not reenter drug