In re T.A. CA1/3

Filed 7/30/13 In re T.A. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

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

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, A136820 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. HJ08011104, HJ08011105) ANDREA H., Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea H. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for two of her daughters. Mother contends the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption is inapplicable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)1 We find no error and shall affirm. Factual and Procedural Background On October 24, 2008, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (agency) filed a petition alleging that mother’s four children, then ages 3, 6, 8 and 13, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. The petition alleged that mother failed to protect her children from her live-in boyfriend who physically abused mother and the two older children and sexually abused the 13-year-old girl.

1 All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

The petition was sustained on all counts on May 12, 2009, following a contested jurisdictional hearing. At some point, the proceedings were bifurcated and only the two younger children, T.A. and S.A. (both girls), are the subject of the proceedings at issue here. The girls were placed in foster care on May 13, 2009, and mother was provided family reunification services. At the October 2009 six-month review hearing, the agency reported that mother was “in minimal compliance with her case plan.” The agency noted that mother tested positive for cocaine in July 2009 and was only minimally engaged in obtaining counseling for substance abuse and domestic violence issues. Mother, who is severely hearing impaired, noted some difficulties in arranging services. Mother was “inconsistent” in her supervised visitations with the children and “forgot” several visits in September 2009. The children displayed “behavioral difficulties following visits” with their mother. A review hearing in January 2010 found mother in “partial compliance with her case plan.” Mother attended domestic violence counseling sessions and parenting classes but missed drug tests, substance abuse counseling and treatment. Mother was permitted unsupervised weekly visits with the girls. Mother’s class attendance improved by April 2010, but she tested positive for marijuana and was not “consistent” in her “pick-up and drop-off times” for child visitation. A psychological assessment of mother found her to have “a history of victimization of abuse both in her family of origin and with her most recent partner,” “a strong history of substance abuse,” “somewhat limited insight . . . regarding the impact of her behaviors on her children” and “fewer resources than most people for managing the everyday stressors of life.” In October 2010, the agency recommended termination of family reunification services. Mother had tested positive for marijuana multiple times from April to October 2010 and on other days during that same period failed to report for testing. Mother’s home was unsafe: she was being harassed by a relative of her former live-in boyfriend, and a friend of hers who tried to protect her from home break-ins was stabbed. Mother