Opinion
E033886.
10-23-2003
In re TYLER M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACY F. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Tracy F. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Christopher M. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tracy F. (mother) is the mother of Tyler M., Chelsea M. and Kate Lynn M. Christopher M. (father) is the father of the children. The Department of Childrens Services (DCS) detained the children in July of 2001, after it was found that Tyler was physically abused, and one of the other children had been sexually abused by a step-brother.
The parents had extensive histories of contact with DCS, including allegations of domestic violence, neglect of the children, and sexual and physical abuse. The children had twice previously been adjudged dependents of the court, most notably when Tyler tested positive for drugs at birth. Mother also had already lost her parental rights to an older daughter, who had been adopted by a maternal aunt and uncle.
The juvenile court made jurisdictional findings that Tyler and Chelsea came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and that Kate Lynn came within section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) and (j). At a separate contested dispositional hearing, the court declared the children dependents of the juvenile court, placed them with the maternal aunt and uncle, and ordered reunification services for the parents. At the time of the dispositional hearing, the court noted that the parents had "not complied with initial services ordered at detention."
At the time of the six-month review, the parents had made little progress in their service plans. An addendum report later indicated that the parents had begun to work on the counseling and visitation components of the plan, and the social worker therefore recommended continuing reunification services.
By the 18-month review, the court found that, while the parents had made some progress in some elements of their service plans, they had failed to resolve the issues leading to the dependency. Among other things, the parents were living with fathers parents and were unable to provide a stable home of their own for the children. The court terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
The parents filed a petition seeking writ review of the decision to set a selection and implementation hearing; this court denied their writ petition on March 25, 2003.
At the selection and implementation hearing, the court terminated the parents parental rights, and selected adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle as the permanent plan for this sibling group.
The parents appeal. Counsel for each parent has submitted a brief under In re Sade C. and Anders v. California, setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts. Counsel have requested this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.
In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952.
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493].
We have provided mother and father with the opportunity to file personal supplemental briefs, but neither parent has done so.
Although we are not required under In re Sade C., supra, to undertake an independent review, we have done so. We have completed that review and have found no arguable issues.
In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: /s/ Ramirez, P.J., and /s/ Gaut, J.