In re J.M. CA1/5

Filed 8/1/13 In re J.M. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A137248 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J11-00061) JAMES M. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

James M. (Father)1 and Marilyn L. (Mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to J.M. (Minor) following a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Mother claims she received inadequate notice of the possibility that her parental rights could be terminated at the hearing, and both parents contend there was an insufficient showing that Minor is adoptable. We affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2011, the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a section 300 dependency petition alleging that Minor (born in June 2006)

1 James M. is not J.M.’s biological father, but the juvenile court granted James M. presumed father status. 2 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The January petition and subsequent amended petitions alleged as the bases for jurisdiction, among other things, Minor’s parents’ drug abuse, domestic violence in the home, and extensive sexual abuse of Minor by parents. At the July 2011 contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the section 300 petition, as amended. At the November dispositional hearing, the court adjudged Minor a dependent of the court and denied both parents reunification services and visitation. The court also scheduled the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. The Bureau’s report for the March 2012 section 366.26 hearing indicated Minor was healthy and developmentally on target. She was in her fourth placement, which began on November 1, 2011. The report stated that Minor is adoptable, explaining “[Minor] is a young child who has been seriously damaged by the actions of her mother and the presumed father. [Minor] has had many behaviors that show how she is processing this abuse, and trying to heal from it and form positive, healthy relationships. [Minor] is getting a lot of support in this process, and she has responded well to this support. [Minor] is a young child who has many strengths, not the least of which is her bright, engaging personality. [Minor] desires to connect and receive love, and she is eager to be a part of a family. In this respect, [Minor] is a highly adoptable child.” The Bureau recommended a 180-day continuance of the hearing to provide the Bureau an opportunity to locate an adoptive home. The juvenile court continued the hearing to August 2012. In an August 2012 addendum report, the Bureau recommended another continuance of 90 days. Minor was healthy, performing at grade level, and there were no reported behavioral problems at school or home. Minor was participating in “Intensive Therapeutic Foster Care Services” to address self-esteem and personal boundary issues, as well as symptoms of anxiety and hyper vigilance. Minor had begun overnight visits with a prospective adoptive parent in June 2012, but the prospective adoptive parent declined to proceed further because of Minor’s hyperactivity, need for constant attention,