In re A.S. CA3

Filed 7/29/13 In re A.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re A.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES C072711 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J04294) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to minors A.S. and T.L. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 1 § 366.26.) She contends the record does not show by clear and convincing evidence that the minors are adoptable. Disagreeing, we shall affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The minors were originally detained in 2006, when they were four and two years old respectively, due to mother’s mental problems.2 They were placed in foster care and mother received reunification services. Before disposition, T.L. was diagnosed with bilateral aniridia (ill-formed or missing irises) and a congenital cataract in his right eye. A.S. had no known physical or emotional problems.3 A status review report filed in 2007 by the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) opined that both minors were adoptable. The minors were bonded with each other. The juvenile court returned the minors to mother’s custody under a family maintenance plan in 2008. In June 2009, the court terminated jurisdiction. In September 2010, the Agency filed a new section 300 petition, alleging that mother, who appeared to be experiencing paranoid delusions again, was arrested and jailed for violating court orders related to the minors. In January 2011, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition true, set a dispositional hearing, and ordered psychological evaluations of mother. In its disposition report, filed in May 2011, the Agency recommended denying reunification services to mother because the psychological evaluations had concluded she suffered from severe mental illness. The minors were in their third placement. T.L., now seven years old, exhibited social, emotional, and intellectual delays; he struggled in school and had difficulty interacting with other children. Recently he had displayed anger and “inappropriate