Opinion
A169636
04-25-2024
In re S.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Respondent; SARAH C., Petitioner, SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT et al., Real Parties in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Sonoma County Super Ct. Nos. DEP6742, DEP6743, DEP6745)
BURNS, J.
Sarah C., the mother of nine children including the three involved here, petitions under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, to vacate the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services at the 12-month review hearing and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.Mother contends that the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) failed to provide reasonable reunification services, and the evidence compelled a finding the children could be returned with an additional six months of services. Her contentions are unsupported by the record, so we deny the petition on its merits.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
The Department initiated this action on December 1, 2022, after Peter K. (Father) was stopped while driving under the influence of methamphetamine with Mother, then pregnant with C.K.; 10-year-old S.C.; possibly seven-year-old K.C.; and older half-sister J.P. in the car. Father was arrested for driving under the influence, possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia, driving on a suspended license, and child endangerment. Mother was on probation for petty theft at the time; Father was on probation for a hit and run.
The record is inconsistent as to whether K.C. was in the car at the time. Father has not filed a writ petition, so we will limit references to him to those relevant to Mother's petition.
The Department filed a petition alleging Mother failed to protect S.C. and K.C from Father, and that his daily methamphetamine use and possession of drugs and paraphernalia placed the children at significant risk of harm. Mother had a long history of substance abuse, had used methamphetamine, alcohol and other substances during previous pregnancies, and had shown no capacity over the past 10 years to protect her children's safety. Between 2017 and 2021, her parental rights to her four other children with Father had been terminated due to substance abuse and related issues, while older daughter J.P. had been placed in a legal guardianship after numerous Department interventions for severe neglect and parental substance abuse over the course of her first 16 years.
The Department recommended that S.C. and K.C be detained, citing Mother's long history of substance abuse and significant welfare history; her loss of custody of four other children; and the fact she had been bypassed for reunification services for three of them and, despite receiving services, failed to reunify with the fourth.
S.C. and K.C.'s father, Sheldon C., had legal and physical custody of them until his recent death, in September 2022, while Mother had only visitation due to her unsafe behavior. However, legal custody reverted to her after Sheldon's death and she had taken S.C. into her care, while K.C. remained with the paternal grandparents. Since then, SC had reported Mother's trailer was unsafe to live in and that the family lacked access to water, food, and a toilet.
Mother said she had been sober for three and one-half years, but the family's child welfare history did not support her claim. She also claimed she was unaware Father was using methamphetamine. While she said she would end their relationship if necessary, she had not done so during their previous dependency cases. The juvenile court ordered S.C. and K.C. detained and set a jurisdiction hearing for December 28.
Mother gave birth to C.K. at a birthing center on December 2. Four hours after mother and child were discharged, C.K. was transported to the NICU for dehydration and placed in emergency foster care following treatment and monitoring.
On December 6, 2022, the Department filed a dependency petition concerning C.K. alleging, as before, failure to protect, sibling abuse, and risk of harm or illness in the parents' care. The court ordered C.K. detained and scheduled a jurisdiction hearing to coincide with the hearing on the petition for S.C. and K.C.
According to the Department's jurisdiction report, Mother denied knowing Father had been using methamphetamine and said he had moved out of the family home and that she would not allow him back if he continued abusing substances. The case worker was skeptical of these claims, noting that in January and July police had found methamphetamine and paraphernalia in the couple's car and hotel room.
The jurisdiction report described a 20-year child welfare history involving severe neglect, drug and alcohol abuse, Mother's drug use while pregnant, filthy and unsanitary home conditions, and sexual abuse by R.B.'s paternal grandfather. (R.B. is Mother's adult daughter.) It also recounted the parents' substance abuse-related criminal charges and convictions from 2000 to 2020 and noted that both had suspended or revoked driver's licenses. Father's parents told the case worker that Mother had used and exposed the children to drugs including marijuana, methamphetamine, and alcohol for many years. According to the paternal grandmother, Mother and Father were" 'never going to change.' "
On December 28, 2022, the court found the allegations were true, sustained the petitions, and appointed a Court Appointed Special Advocate for the two older children.
The Department's report for the disposition hearing described the circumstances under which Mother and Father had lost their four older children due to substance abuse, neglect, and related issues. However, the couple had since separated and Mother acknowledged she had to prioritize the children's safety over their relationship and would do whatever it took to demonstrate her sobriety.
The case worker reported the children were not safe in their parents' care. Citing the parents' lengthy relationship and Father's long history of substance abuse, the worker opined Mother knew or should have known she was endangering the children by allowing him to drive them while under the influence and exposing them to methamphetamine and paraphernalia. Nonetheless, she agreed with Mother's longtime parent mentor that Mother had progressed and was" 'not the same mother she has worked with in years past.'" The Department recommended that Mother be offered reunification services "even though she has her history working against her" in view of her progress, her sobriety from methamphetamine throughout her most recent pregnancy, and her motivation, desire, and willingness to change.
Following that recommendation, the court maintained all three of the children out of the parents' custody with visitation and family reunification services for Mother to include individual therapy, parenting classes, a 12-step program, random drug testing, and a Drug Abuse Alternative Center (DAAC) assessment.
In advance of the July 13, 2023 six-month review hearing, the Department recommended continuing Mother's reunification services and a trial home visit. Father had been arrested in May for possessing a controlled substance and paraphernalia and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger, but the matter had apparently been dismissed. Both parents were homeless for most of the reporting period. Mother had been fired from her part-time job at a substance abuse treatment center, but had found fulltime work helping developmentally delayed adults. The Department was working with her to help furnish the house she had rented with the help of the "Make It Home" program, and the Interfaith Shelter Network (Interfaith) provided Mother with temporary help for the rent.
Mother's safety goal was to ensure the children were not exposed to, left with, or driven by anyone who was under the influence of substances. She insisted she had been sober since July 2019 despite a positive test for substances while she was pregnant in 2021, in keeping with a long history of minimizing her historic and current substance use even when testing positive. However, she had tested clean for almost 18 months except for two tests in June 2023 that showed high levels of alcohol.
Mother had completed several parenting education classes and completed an assessment with DAAC, which did not recommend outpatient services because Mother reported she had been sober for "some time." Mother's case worker had referred her for individual therapy and placed her on a wait list while searching for available therapists. She was also arranging for Mother to participate in the Drug Free Babies program, although Mother was hesitant because she was starting a new job and doing her visits. In addition, she was working with Interfaith to address Mother's needs and concerns and communicated with her regularly by text and calls.
Mother's visits with the children were consistent and generally went well, but the two older children spent most of the time on their phones instead of interacting with her. Moreover, the case worker expressed concern that Mother had inappropriately told the children they would soon move home and would each have their own rooms, even though it was unclear when or whether this would happen. Mother also inappropriately told S.C. the case worker was forcing her to break up with Father, and that this made her sad. Nonetheless, the worker was hopeful that with therapy, parenting education, and drug treatment support, Mother could make the changes necessary to provide a safe home.
The children's Court Appointed Special Advocate reported that S.C. and K.C. were generally doing well overall and described them as "wonderful children filled with so much potential and full of energy." Mother had told her she would like Father back in the family's home.
The six-month review hearing was held on July 13, 2023. The court authorized a trial home visit despite concerns about Mother's alcohol use. It continued reunification services and set a three-month update hearing and a 12-month status review.
The Department's report for the three-month update again recommended continuing reunification services. K.C. was generally doing well but would become emotionally dysregulated after visits and disappointed when talking about when he could go home. Both he and S.C. reported that Mother told them they would soon come home and showed them pictures of their new rooms. S.C. reported that Mother said the Department was only involved because the paternal grandmother had called the police. To prevent further such conversations, the social worker reinstated fully supervised visits.
Mother tested positive for alcohol on August 7, 2023, her fourth positive test during the proceedings. The case worker met with her and Amanda Cream, from the Drug Dependency Court and the Drug Free Babies program, the same day. Cream recommended that Mother participate in Drug Free Babies in light of her continuing struggles with alcohol and extensive history of abusing substances and minimizing her use.
Mother began the program and tested regularly at first, with negative results. However, by late September Cream reported that Mother had been avoidant, failed to engage in meetings for several weeks, and had not joined self-help groups as requested. Also of concern was Mother's ongoing minimization of her alcohol dependency. Despite the positive test she continued to deny she was drinking, other than having had one glass of wine with a girlfriend, but "this admittance does not account for the levels of alcohol that [Mother] tested for, and [Mother] denie[d] having any alcohol since the last court hearing."
Various sources had reported multiple people were living in Mother's home, including Father, an ex-boyfriend's adult son, and R.B. with her partner and two children. There were also reports of Father hiding in a backyard shed when people showed up at the house.
On September 7, 2023, during an unannounced visit, the case worker observed a pickup truck matching the description of Father's parked in the driveway and his motorcycle behind the house near the shed. Mother delayed for a minute and texted someone before allowing the worker into the home. Inside, there were men's clothes and shoes in Mother's closet and on her floor. Mother said they belonged to someone new she was dating.
Mother seemed nervous when confronted with the reports of Father staying at the house and volunteered that he was there, but only to pack up some belongings. Father was nowhere in sight; Mother said he must have left, but all the cars were still there. The case worker observed an extension cord running into the backyard shed, but when she tried to inspect the shed the doors would not open even though the exterior locks were unlocked. She also observed multiple open cans of an alcoholic drink in the living room/kitchen area.
In the case worker's assessment, Mother "appear[ed] to be dishonest about what is happening in her home even when confronted with other information. There [had] consistently been reports that [she] will lie to the Department and that she has coached her children to lie when they were in her care. The Department is worried that this pattern is continuing and it is difficult to trust" her reports.
The three-month update hearing was held on October 12, 2024. The children's counsel expressed concerns, and said he would seek to terminate services. The parties gave updates and the court confirmed the January 4, 2024 date for the 12-month review.
By then, the Department had changed its recommendation to terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Its 12-month status report described an incident in Mother's home in July during which R.B.'s boyfriend verbally and physically abused R.B. According to R.B., this was not the first such incident. The boyfriend was arrested.
S.C. had started opening up during her therapy sessions and talking about her anger and frustration at Mother's failure to follow through on promises or do what was necessary to reunify. During the reporting period, for example, Mother told S.C. that she and older sister J.P. would share custody of a pet snake Mother had bought "50/50." Upset that she couldn't see the snake, SC threatened to run away to Mother's house. This was despite the case worker and the court having instructed Mother to stop making promises she had no power to deliver.
S.C. reported that Father continued to be in Mother's home and in a relationship with her; in her view, Mother chose him over her children and would never leave him. K.C. struggled with intense anxiety before and after his visits with Mother, which he had started asking to skip.
The case worker was still receiving reports of adults other than Mother and R.B. in the home. Various individuals reported information suggesting Mother and Father were still in a relationship and possibly living together despite Mother's case plan objective of not having contact with him.
Mother did not engage with the children's caregivers during transitions at visits or ask the caseworker for information about the children, appearing uninterested in their needs and more interested in being their friend than parenting them.
Mother was testing regularly but had not provided documentation of her attendance at self-help meetings or engaged with Cream on a regular basis. Rather, she was "just 'going through the motions,' and seeming to 'check the box' in order to complete this objective," neither fully engaging in the Drug Free Babies program nor taking accountability for her actions. Despite the case worker's warnings, she insisted it was fine for there to be alcohol in her home. However, Mother had maintained her sobriety and employment throughout the reporting period, consistently attended and engaged in her individual therapy, and took multiple parenting classes.
The caseworker met with Mother in August, September, October, and December, on two of those occasions with Mother's parent mentor in attendance; an attempted November meeting did not happen because Mother did not follow through. The caseworker provided support and guidance surrounding visitation, including suggestions on how to better engage with the children and what she needed to demonstrate for successful reunification. In addition, she coordinated with Cream about Mother's participation in Drug Free Babies, conferred frequently with the visitation monitors and caregivers, held multiple meetings with the caregivers to discuss their concerns and the children's behavior in relation to visits, met with the children every month, and collaborated with their service providers.
Mother's visits were "very marginal." At the start of the reporting period, she had weekly individual visits with each child because she was struggling to attend to all their needs and the caseworker and service providers felt one-on-one time would help strengthen their connection. In addition, she had one weekly group visit with all three children. The visitation supervisor modeled appropriate behavior for Mother by demonstrating how to simultaneously engage with the older children while caring for the infant, C.K. Nonetheless, Mother tended to sit by while the children played rather than engage with them, failed to reciprocate or initiate affectionate behavior, and sometimes asked to end visits early for arbitrary reasons. In September the visitation schedule was reduced due to staffing shortages to one supervised weekly visit with S.C. and K.C., one with all three children, and one lightly supervised visit with C.K..
The Department concluded Mother was unable to provide a safe and supportive home for the children "[d]ue to the ongoing presence of alcohol in the home, the continued minimization of responsibility of maintaining a clean and sober household, continued contact with [Father], and continued lack of connection with her children that has led to mental anguish for the children." After 12 months of services, Mother was "largely in the same spot in which she was when the current dependency matter came to be. She is still minimizing her history, appears to be hiding her relationship with [Father], and is trying to befriend her children instead of parenting and acting proactively."
In a supplemental report submitted shortly before the 12-month review hearing, the Department disclosed that Mother had tested positive for a "high level" of alcohol on December 26. While Mother told the caseworker she had just two drinks on Christmas Eve and Christmas, the level of alcohol in her system made this highly unlikely. In addition, R.B. had not followed through on getting a restraining order after the domestic violence incident and apparently still lived with her partner in Mother's home, creating another safety concern for the children.
The 12-month review hearing took place on January 29, 2024. Mother's therapist, Kyla Rauh, testified that she and Mother had been working on healthy relationships, grief surrounding the death of Mother's husband and loss of her children, and specific techniques to strengthen her bond with the children and support them through Sheldon C.'s death. To Rauh's knowledge, Mother had ended her relationship with Father because of his drug use and unhealthy behaviors.
Rauh had been coaching Mother on parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT), a technique for strengthening her bond with the children and elevating K.C.'s self-esteem. Mother told Rauh she was employing the technique with the children, and Rauh believed she had learned the PCIT skills and could employ them. Mother had become more mature since 2021, when Rauh had briefly treated her, and was less connected to Father. Rauh felt she could appropriately engage in family therapy with the children, but did not know if the children's therapist would authorize it. She did not work with Mother on domestic violence or substance abuse issues.
R.B. testified that Father did not live with her and Mother or in the shed behind their home. She would notify the Department if he came by. Her own children's father did not live with them either, although his mail was delivered to the house.
The caseworker testified consistently with her reports that Mother had tested negative for illegal drugs during the entire pendency of the case. She acknowledged that Mother had agreed to notify her in advance whenever she planned to see Father and had, in fact, notified her before he joined her and the children for trick-or-treating on Halloween and again in December when he came by to fix her car.
The caseworker had not offered Mother one-on-one coaching from a parent educator during supervised visits because, to her knowledge, that service was currently available only for unsupervised or trial home visits. However, Mother was offered parent education classes, and the caseworker and parent mentor worked with her on how to engage with the children more successfully. Family therapy was not offered because the children's therapist felt they were not ready for it.
The caseworker was concerned by the multiple reports Father had been in Mother's home, and by her choice to have contact with him outside of visits with their mutual children. Mother's failure to have disclosed having a boyfriend during the reunification period was also worrisome.
Mother's positive tests for alcohol and allowing alcoholic drinks in her home were problematic as well. "So the fact that she had been sober for a period of I think it was about four months, maybe a little more, and then she used or drank again, it was very concerning." Mother was reassessed and offered outpatient treatment at the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center (DAAC) after her positive test in December, but she declined because the classes conflicted with her work schedule. Nonetheless, she was testing through Drug Free Babies, meeting with Cream "every once in a while," and said she had started working with a sponsor.
The caseworker disagreed with the therapist's positive view of Mother's progress, pointing out that the therapist heard only Mother's side of the story. She believed the children would be at risk in Mother's care because of her alcohol use, her minimization of it, and her continuing contact with Father Moreover, the visitation monitors were largely still observing the same lack of engagement between Mother and the two older children. Notably, none of the eight children who had been removed had been in her care for any significant period. The case worker opined that another six months of services would not allow the children to be returned home.
Elizabeth Vermilyea is the deputy director of the Child Parent Institute, which offers various family services to assist with visitation. She testified that parent educators might be available for supervised visits or to work with parents outside of visits, but that this was an exception to their usual policy of supporting unsupervised visits and was decided on a case-by-case basis. However, "[i]t's rare that we turn down an exception unless there's a compelling reason."
Mother testified that she had used methamphetamines for seven years and had been clean for four. When she drank punch at Christmas, she knew it was alcoholic but did not realize it contained 100-proof Smirnoff in addition to rum and champagne. She was currently attending "a few" AA meetings, had a sponsor, and was on step two.
Mother did not remember the social worker telling her to limit her contact with Father to visits with their mutual children and when he worked on her car. Rather, she was supposed to text the worker before any contact with him, which she did before Halloween and before he worked on her car. She had set boundaries with Father and was no longer "going out of [her] way to do things to help his life." He was not living in her shed; it did not lock from the inside and the only reason the case worker could not open it was a stuck latch; and the pickup truck and motorcycle parked at her house that day were not his.
Mother felt she had a bond with all three children, particularly the girls, and had implemented her therapist's suggestions to better connect with them during visits. She felt K.C. had become more affectionate with her and visits with C.K. went very well. She texted or Facetimed with S.C. daily. She was willing to participate in more services to help facilitate her visits with the children. Although she believed R.B.'s boyfriend should be able to see his children, she knew there had been more than one domestic violence incident between him and R.B. and was willing to forbid him from spending nights at her house.
Mother maintained she had been clean and sober since July 2019, despite having been cited for having a meth pipe in 2020 and testing positive for methamphetamine while pregnant in 2021. She had completed the DAAC substance abuse program in 2012 but, despite having been asked to do so, had not done other substance abuse programs since then because "there was no chance . . . to get the kids back so I didn't see the point." She understood she had a methamphetamine addiction but, in her view, did not need a substance abuse treatment program and did not have a problem with alcohol.
The court found the children could not safely be returned to Mother's care. It commended her on her progress, and particularly for having stayed clean from methamphetamine, but observed she was still choosing to use alcohol and would likely have an issue with it indefinitely. Finding further that the Department had offered reasonable services and there was no likelihood of reunification with an additional six months of services, the court terminated reunification services, set a hearing under section 366.26 for May 16, 2024, and advised Mother of her obligation to file a writ to preserve her right to appeal its order.
DISCUSSION
A.
The juvenile court may not order that a permanency planning hearing be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the reunification services offered or provided to the parent were reasonable. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C)(ii).) In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding of reasonable services, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court's order, view the record most favorably to its determination, and affirm if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. We neither evaluate witness credibility, reweigh evidence, nor resolve evidentiary conflicts. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
Here, Mother asserts she was given insufficient support for her sobriety and strengthening her bond with the children. We are unpersuaded. Viewed in accord with the above standard, the record sufficiently establishes the Department complied with its responsibility to identify the problems that led to Mother's loss of custody and offer her reasonable services designed to remedy them.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Mother's arguments rely to a substantial extent on emphasizing the evidence that, in her view, supports her position-evidence, for example, of positive aspects of visits, her attendance and progress at AA/NA meetings, and her ineligibility for the DAAC outpatient sobriety program until her positive test for alcohol in December 2023. But the question is not whether there was evidence in Mother's favor; there undoubtedly was, including her commendable achievement of refraining from methamphetamine use. It is, rather, whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination. In making that assessment, our power as a court of review "begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination.... If such substantial evidence be found, it is of no consequence that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached a contrary conclusion." (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874, original italics.)
In any event, Mother's arguments are not persuasive. Reasonable services are services designed to aid the parent in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and continuing custody. (In re Taylor J. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) In reviewing whether reunification services were reasonable, we recognize that in most cases more could have been provided, and that those that were provided are not often perfect. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) The standard, however, is not whether they were perfect, but whether they were reasonable under the circumstances. (Ibid.)
We are satisfied they were. These children were removed primarily because Father drove with them while he was on methamphetamine; Mother failed to recognize and prevent the danger this posed to them; and both parents' long history of substance abuse placed the children at risk of harm. Accordingly, the Department made it clear from the outset that Mother had to show she could both maintain her own sobriety and ensure the children were not exposed to anyone using or abusing substances. To that end, it offered her individual therapy, a parent mentor, and parenting education classes; directed her to explore the Dependency Drug Court with her attorney and caseworker, submit to random testing, and engage in a 12-step program to support her recovery; and twice referred her to complete a DAAC substance abuse assessment and follow all resulting recommendations. While Mother's work schedule conflicted with the DAAC sessions available after her second assessment, she ignored advice to check back for future openings that would fit her schedule. She was referred to the Drug Free Babies program, but according to the program coordinator just" '[went] through the motions'" without engaging. She was also referred to Interfaith and various other community resources for help establishing a suitable home. And her therapist, caseworker, visitation supervisor, and parent mentor provided coaching and support.
This satisfies us Mother was offered reasonable services designed to address her substance-related issues and poor bond with the children. Could she have benefited from additional services, such as visitation support from a parent educator? Possibly, but perfection is not the test. Mother was provided extensive support designed to overcome the problems that led to the children's removal. Sufficient evidence supports the court's finding that those services satisfy the standard of reasonableness. In light of this conclusion, we do not address Mother's further contentions that the Department withheld reasonable services because it believed reunification would fail, and it was not her responsibility to identify what additional services she should have been offered.
B.
Next, Mother contends the court should have extended the reunification period because she had stopped using methamphetamine, had participated in parenting training and therapy, and visited consistently. Accordingly, she maintains, there is a likelihood the children could be returned with an additional six months of reunification. This contention, too, is unpersuasive.
Court-ordered reunification services may be extended to a maximum of 18 months from the date a child was originally removed from the parent's custody, but only if the court finds a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent within the extended period or that reasonable services have not been provided. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
To find a substantial probability the child will be returned within the extended reunification period, the court must find the parent has: (1) consistently and regularly visited with the child; (2) made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the child's removal; and (3) demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, and physical and emotional wellbeing. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) We review the court's determination for substantial evidence, resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of its ruling and drawing all legitimate inferences in its favor. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 969.) The parent has the burden of showing the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding and order. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 749.)
Mother has not satisfied that burden. We do not question that she regularly visited the children and made some degree of progress on the issues leading to their removal, most notably by continuing to abstain from methamphetamine use. But the fact remains that she was still using alcohol, minimizing her drinking, allowing others to drink in her home, and continuing to engage with Father despite their long history of mutual substance abuse and her belief that he was to blame for the current situation.
Mother casts the Department's concerns about her poor connection with the children, her multiple positive tests for alcohol during the reunification period, and her continuing involvement with Father as "a minutia of issues" falling short of substantial evidence that there was no substantial probability of reunification with an additional six months of services. On this record, the juvenile court reasonably reached the opposite conclusion.
DISPOSITION
The petition for an extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (See § 366.26, subd. (1); In re Julie S. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 988, 990-991.) Our decision is final immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b).)
WE CONCUR: SIMONS, ACTING P. J., CHOU, J.