Opinion
E033209.
7-23-2003
In re STEPHANIE R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD R. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Donald R. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Connie R. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minors.
Donald R. (father) and Connie R. (mother) appeal from an order terminating parental rights to their children, Donald, Stephanie and Joann.
There is a fourth child who is not the subject of this appeal. Rights to that child were terminated before the others, and there was a separate appeal affirming the order.
A petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) was filed on behalf of the children due to mothers substance abuse and fathers failure to provide for the childrens needs.
All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.
A jurisdiction hearing was held on July 7, 1999. The court sustained the petition, adopted a reunification plan and removed custody from mother and father.
A six-month hearing ( § 366.21, subd. (e)) was held on February 22, 2000 and a 12-month hearing ( § 366.21, subd. (f)) was held on October 23, 2000. At the latter hearing the court terminated reunification services and referred the case for a selection and implementation hearing.
Mother and father sought writ review of the referral order. We summarily denied the petition. (Case No. E028264.) Pending the selection and implementation hearing a section 388 petition was filed.
A combined section 388 and 366.26 hearing was held on December 3, 2001. The court denied the section 388 petition. The court found the children adoptable, but did not terminate parental rights at that time. All three children had had numerous failed placements. Mother and father had consistently visited the children, and the children had voiced a desire to live with their parents. The court directed the social worker to find adoptive placements and terminated parental visitation.
Mother and father appealed. We dismissed that part of the appeal challenging the adoptability finding as premature but otherwise affirmed. (Case No. E030821.)
Eventually all three children were placed in a prospective adoptive home in which the foster parents were willing to have post adoption visits with the fourth sibling.
While the first appeal was pending, mother filed another section 388 petition. It was denied without a hearing. Mother appealed, and we affirmed. (Case No. E031604.)
On November 7, 2002, father filed a motion to relinquish his parental rights. This was opposed by the County Counsel, and on December 5, 2002, the court denied the motion.
After many continuances, the continued section 366.26 hearing was held on January 24, 2003. At that hearing mother requested that her attorney be relieved and a new one appointed. That motion was denied. The court then terminated parental rights.
Mother and father have timely appealed, and at their request we appointed counsel to represent them on appeal. Both counsel have filed briefs under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and asking this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but hey have not done so.
We have now completed our independent review and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli J., King J.