Opinion
B195023
4-26-2007
In re GABRIEL M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. EVELIA M., Objector and Appellant.
Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Evelia M. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her son Gabriel M. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Finding no error, we affirm.
All further statutory references are to this code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mother has six children, two of whom are no longer minors, and four of whom are in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). In December of 2004, DCFS received information that mother was neglecting and emotionally abusing her two youngest children, Victor and Gabriel, and instituted dependency proceedings with respect to all four minors. Gabriel, born in March 1998, is the only minor subject to this appeal.
This was not DCFSs first involvement with this family. In 1990, mothers three oldest children were made dependents of the juvenile court when the youngest, Crystal, was born with cocaine in her system. They and their later-born siblings were in and out of mothers custody over the next 14 years, as mother alternately recovered from and then relapsed into drug use, and became unable to properly care for them.
The juvenile court sustained a section 300 petition alleging that mother failed to protect the children and placed them at risk of physical or emotional harm. At the contested adjudication hearing, mother testified to her long-standing drug abuse problem. At that hearing, the court found that mother was not entitled to reunification services as a chronic drug user under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan for the children.
Mother petitioned for review of that order. We denied mothers petition for extraordinary relief and found that substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts denial of family reunification services because additional reunification would not serve the childrens best interests. (Evelia v. Superior Court (B183649, Sept. 21, 2005) WL 2293139.)
At Gabriels 366.26 hearing held on September 25, 2006, the court noted that a home study of Gabriels maternal uncle and his wife had been approved on September 20, 2006. The court asked, "Would any counsel like to be heard?" Although mother did not herself appear at the hearing, her counsel responded: "Just know the mother has objected to adoption." Thereafter, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Gabriel is adoptable, and that it would be detrimental to him to be returned to his parents. The court then terminated mother and fathers parental rights to Gabriel.
Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights, contending that the trial court erred in impliedly finding that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception to termination did not apply in these circumstances. The contention lacks merit.
Mother did not argue in the trial court that her parental rights should not be terminated on account of the visitation exception. A party may not assert as error on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court. (In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 641.) Thus, mothers argument that the juvenile court committed reversible error by not considering the exception provided by section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) must fail.
The reason counsel did not present the argument to the trial court is apparent from a cursory reading of the record: there are no facts to support it. Mother failed to maintain consistent contact with Gabriel during the dependency proceeding. Her history of visitation was sporadic at best. In fact, mother failed to appear for scheduled visits so often that relatives refused to monitor her visits.
Moreover, the trial court observed mothers relationship with seven year old Gabriel in the courtroom. At a January 26, 2006 hearing, the court remarked: ". . . even here in court, the mother is sitting here making inappropriate statements to Gabriel. Telling him to say things to the court, talking to him about what his rights are. . . . She cant even be appropriate here in the courtroom, in front of me. I do not know how shes going to be able to be appropriate anywhere else."
In short, mother presents no grounds to reverse the trial courts orders and we therefore affirm.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
MOSK, J.