 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vittoria M. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County5/23/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Vittoria M. (mother) seeks review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); all rule and section references are to those sources) of an order terminating reunification services as to son Travis C. (Travis) and setting a hearing under section 366.26 (.26 hearing) to make a permanent plan for him. We deny the petition.
Background
Travis is the third child born to mother and Kevin C. (the father). Amber C. was born in October 1996, and Kevin C., Jr., was born in October 1999. Travis was born in late July 2002, and a petition filed on August 1 by the Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) was sustained for failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) based on mother's lack of prenatal care, use of marijuana and methamphetamine two days before the birth and history of drug use, and based on Travis's premature birth and hospitalization for oxygen, intubation, antibiotics and fluids "due to poor prenatal care and a hostile environment." Also sustained were allegations of mother's arrest in 2001 for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant, the father's arrest in 1998 for driving under the influence , and the father's substance abuse that impaired his ability to care for the children. Further sustained were allegations of sibling abuse (§ 300, subd. (j)) in that Amber had tested positive for marijuana at birth, mother had smoked marijuana during her pregnancy with Kevin, who has Down's Syndrome, and the parents had failed to provide Kevin with treatment at a regional center, which kept him from walking. Similar allegations were sustained as to the siblings, who were also declared dependents.
Mother resided in Concord when Travis was born. He was removed to foster care in Contra Costa County directly from the hospital and never lived with her, and the other two children were placed together with their paternal grandmother, in the same county. By the time of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings of September 17 and October 11, mother had moved to Red Bluff, in Tehama County, and lived there with the father. We lack a reporter's transcript for the jurisdictional hearing but see that mother testified.
Dispositional Hearing
At the dispositional hearing, for which we do have a transcript, the father sought funds for travel to visits, and mother asked that the case be transferred to Tehama County to ease visits. CFS and the children's counsel "vehemently" opposed the transfer, noting that Amber and Kevin, each of whom had special needs, were placed with a grandmother who was trained in special needs education and worked closely with the regional center, whereas the parents, during their last stay in Red Bluff, had failed to obtain help from the regional center there. Both children were also "bonded and attached" to the grandmother, and Amber had previously spent much time with her. The court ordered travel funding but denied the transfer, saying it was not in the children's best interests, that the court and agency were familiar with the case, that the children already resided in this county, and that the parents had been "somewhat transient," making it unclear where they would end up living. The court set a six-month review for March 14, 2003. The court had noted March 17, 2003, as the end of the six-month reunification period for the two
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|