In re Edgar M. CA2/6

Filed 5/30/13 In re Edgar M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EDGAR M. el al., Persons Coming 2d Juv. No. B244882 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J1379615, J1379616, J1379617) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MONICA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Monica M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court orders terminating parental rights to her son, Edgar, and establishing adoption as his permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).1 Mother contends that the finding of Edgar's adoptability is not supported by substantial evidence.2 We affirm.                                                              1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2  The juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights to Edgar's two sisters. Mother appealed from all such orders. Her brief, however, challenges only those orders that concern Edgar. The court also terminated the parental rights of presumed father, Vidal M., who did not appear below, and has not appeared before this court.

BACKGROUND In October 2010, 9-year-old Edgar lived in Santa Maria with mother and his sisters, 7-year-old Ana, and 6-year-old Norma. Vidal M. (presumed father) did not live with the family. On October 19, 2010, school personnel called mother because Norma could not talk or move her right arm. When mother picked her up, Norma was limping and making only one-word statements. Several hours later, mother took her to a hospital in Santa Maria. The doctors concluded she had had a stroke. Further testing revealed that Norma had several recent and older brain infarctions and a "non-accidental trauma vertebral artery dissection" in her neck. The doctors concluded she was a child abuse victim and contacted Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS). CWS received inconsistent information from mother and the children regarding Norma's injuries. On November 1, 2010, CWS took the children into protective custody. On November 3, 2010, CWS filed dependency petitions on behalf of Edgar, Ana, and Norma, alleging failure to protect and support, with sibling abuse allegations as to Ana and Edgar. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (g) & (j).)3 On November 4, the juvenile court conducted detention proceedings and removed the children from mother's custody. On January 20, 2011, the juvenile court found that the allegations of the petitions were true, declared the children dependents of the court, and ordered that they remain in out-of-home care. The court ordered supervised visitation for mother, and family reunification services. The CWS reports showed that while mother was affectionate during her visits, she never progressed beyond supervised visitation. In December 2011, mother upset Norma and Edgar by cutting a scheduled two-hour visit to one hour because Ana was not attending. In January 2012, CWS reported that the children did not want to visit mother without supervision until they were sure she would no longer get mad at them. According to her therapist, mother lacked empathy and did not understand how her behavior could impact the children. For example, during a visit, she told them their                                                              3 CWS later dismissed the section 300, subdivision (a) allegations and accordingly filed amended petitions, most recently on January 21, 2011.