In re S.H. CA2/6

Filed 7/16/24 In re S.H. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re S.H., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B333723 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 22JV00362) Law. (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.L. (mother) appeals from the orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her five-year-old daughter, S.H., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. &

Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it found she failed to prove the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. We affirm. Facts and Procedural Background We incorporate by reference our prior nonpublished opinion denying mother’s petition for extraordinary writ. (T.L. v. Superior Court (Aug. 14, 2023, B326173) [nonpub. opn.]; see also In re Bella L. (May 13, 2024, B331973) [nonpub. opn.].)2 We summarize only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal. In November 2022, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) secured a protective custody warrant and detained four-year-old S.H. and her newborn baby sister Bella after Bella tested positive for amphetamine at birth.3 CWS filed a dependency petition alleging, among other things, Bella’s positive drug test, mother’s drug use, mother’s “substantial” child welfare history, including the removal and subsequent adoptions of mother’s two older children, and mother’s criminal history. In January 2023, at the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the amended petition to be true, bypassed reunification services for mother, and granted mother supervised visitation with S.H. By the six-month status review hearing, mother was receiving two hours of visitation with S.H. per month. Although