L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Maria D. (In re AN.L.)
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | B315986 |
| Parties | In re AN.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. MARIA D. et al., Defendants and Appellants. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In re AN.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARIA D. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
B315986
California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
December 8, 2022
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP01456A-B Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.
Karriem Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maria D.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Hector L.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Maria D. (Mother) and Hector L. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court's summary denial of Father's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petitions and its order terminating their parental rights to their daughters An.L. and Al.L. They contend the court did not conduct a correct parent-child relationship analysis as set out in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.) and erroneously failed to find applicable the beneficial parent-child relationship exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). The parents also argue the matter should be remanded for further inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Commencement of Dependency Proceedings
When Al.L. tested positive for methamphetamines at birth, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging she and her one-year-old sister An.L. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling).[2] Initially, the children were detained from Mother and released to Father on the condition that they stay
with the paternal grandparents until the results of Father's drug test became available.
When Al.L. was nine days old, Father tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines. DCFS immediately removed the children from him. On March 20, 2020, the court detained the children from Father, placed them with the paternal grandparents, and granted the parents monitored visits. DCFS filed an amended petition adding a section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allegation based on Father's drug use. The jurisdictional hearing was set for June 2020.
In May 2020, Father tested positive on one drug test and missed another. Mother, who admitted long term methamphetamine use, tested negative in March, then missed tests in April and May 2020. The parents visited the children daily or every other day, and there were no concerns regarding visits.
On June 29, 2020, the court amended the first amended petition by interlineation and sustained the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).
II. Dispositional Hearing, July 2020
As of July 2020, both parents were visiting the children three times per week and visits were going well. Mother said she had begun a drug and alcohol program, parenting education, and individual counseling, but she had failed to appear for any scheduled drug tests since May 2020. Between May and July 2020, Father had tested positive once and failed to appear for eight scheduled drug tests. He had not enrolled in any classes.
At disposition, the court declared the children dependents and ordered them removed from their parents. The parents were ordered to complete parenting education, individual counseling,
and a minimum of six months of drug and alcohol services, including a full drug/alcohol program with aftercare, testing, and a 12-step program. The court granted monitored visitation with discretion to DCFS to liberalize.
III. July 2020-February 2021
The children were placed in foster care in November 2020 because the paternal grandparents were allowing Father unmonitored access to them.
Both parents failed to comply with their case plans. Mother began and quit multiple treatment programs, and she was dismissed from her counseling program for nonattendance. Mother missed all 25 scheduled DCFS drug tests between August 2020 and February 2021. She admitted using drugs in September 2020, and she tested positive at her program in February 2021.
Father missed all 13 scheduled DCFS drug tests between the disposition hearing and October 2020. In October 2020 Father enrolled in a substance abuse program, but he missed so many services in the first two months that he was on the verge of discharge. His case manager told DCFS, "We have achieved nothing." As of January 5, 2021, Father had not gone to any 12-step meetings.
Between October 2020 and February 3, 2021, Father attended 40 group sessions and 14 individual sessions of his treatment program. Over the same period, he tested positive on four of the eight drug tests his program administered. Father enrolled in a weekly parenting class in January 2021. By February 3, 2021, he had started attending 12-step meetings and had a sponsor.
As of September 2020, both parents were visiting the children and there were no concerns about visitation. Once the children were placed in foster care, the parents visited telephonically and by videoconference. During calls, Father talked and engaged with the children.
Father had three 2-hour park visits with the children in January and February 2021. Father arrived on time for the first visit, and the children hugged him. They sat on a blanket and Father fed them. An.L. watched videos on a tablet while Father held Al.L. Toward the end of the visit, Father and An.L. spent time at the playground. At the end of the visit, Father put the children in their car seats.
For their second park visit, Father spread out a blanket, set out toys for the children, and erected a small bouncy house that the children enjoyed. Father was creative at bringing things for the girls to play with. He fed them snacks and took them to the playground. Father was courteous and appropriate at all times.
Father brought a jumper, blanket, toys, and food to the park for his third in-person visit. Father and the children sat together and ate while watching videos. An.L. and Father played peek-a-boo; Al.L. asked Father when she wanted food or toys. The children were comfortable with Father and waved or said goodbye at the end of the visit.
IV. March-May, 2021
During this period, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines and missed several drug tests. She attended substance abuse classes consistently but not productively. She transferred to a residential treatment program in April but was soon discharged for obtaining drugs. Mother had not enrolled in a new program as of May 20, 2021.
Father was attending his substance abuse program, but he was not always mentally present. Although he was attending 12-step meetings and had a temporary sponsor, it was unclear how many meetings he had attended because he signed his own attendance record. Father reported attending six 12-step meetings in April 2021. Father's monthly drug tests for his program had all been negative; he had missed some DCFS tests and tested negative on others.
V. Review Hearing
At the review hearing on May 26, 2021, DCFS recommended terminating reunification services. Mother asked for continued services. Father wanted the children returned to him or permanently placed with the paternal grandparents. In the alternative, he sought unmonitored visitation and more reunification services.
According to Father's counsel, Father had completed his substance abuse program and was set to complete aftercare on June 5, 2021. He was attending a 12-step program and was excited about recovery. He had finished parenting education. The only part of the case plan Father had not yet addressed was individual counseling.
The court considered Father's failure to document his 12-step program attendance in May 2021 and his missed drug tests between March and May 2021 to be "a blatant disregard of the court case plan." Finding the parents had not made substantial progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating the children's placement, the court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing (".26 hearing") for September 2021. The court granted monitored in-
person visits twice weekly for two hours per visit and authorized continued drug testing.
VI. Permanency Planning Hearing Reports
DCFS advised the court the foster parents were committed to adopting the children, and there appeared to be no impediment to adoption. The children, aged one and two, were too young to provide statements, but they had adjusted well to the prospective adoptive home and sought age-appropriate attention, love, and care from the prospective adoptive parents. Neither child exhibited emotional distress or received mental health services.
The parents were warm, engaging, and affectionate with the children during video and in-person visits. The children recognized their parents and were happy and excited to see them. Father began visiting regularly in January 2021. He visited two or three times per month. In March 2021, he failed to appear for two visits and missed a scheduled video visit. He visited six times and missed a seventh in July 2021. Father was appropriate, loving, affectionate, and engaging during visits; he brought food and toys or activities, and he played with them on the playground. The children were happy and excited to spend time with him.
In the concurrent planning assessment, DCFS stated that the parents visited the children weekly at a park and had telephone or video visits twice per week. The parents were each described as visiting the children 30...
To continue reading
Request your trial