In re J.M. CA6

Filed 8/6/13 In re J.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.M. et al., a Person Coming Under H039138 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD20291, JD20292, JD20293)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN‟S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant C.V. (the mother) challenges the juvenile court‟s order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her three children. She claims that the court erred in failing to find that the parental relationship exception precluded termination. We disagree and affirm the order.

I. Background The mother‟s three children, five-year-old Jo.M., three-year-old Ja.M., and eight- month-old H.R. (the children),were detained in August 2010. Petitions were filed

alleging that the mother‟s chronic ongoing substance abuse placed the children at risk of physical harm and neglect in her care. The mother had not been caring for the children. Instead, she had left the children in the care of the children‟s great-grandparents, who 1 were too aged and ill to care for them. The mother had an ongoing and long-standing methamphetamine habit. The fathers of the children were both incarcerated. The eldest child reported that “he does not see [the mother] a lot,” even though she lived with the great-grandparents. The maternal grandmother reported that she and the maternal great-grandparents had been taking care of the children “since they were born,” with the great-grandparents providing “most of the care.” The great-grandparents “didn‟t get any help from” the mother. The mother and both fathers submitted on the social worker‟s report at the October 2010 jurisdictional hearing, and the court found the petition true. At the December 2010 dispositional hearing, the court removed the children from the mother‟s custody, placed the children in foster care, and ordered that the mother and both fathers be afforded reunification services. The mother‟s case plan required her to complete a specific parenting class and a program of counseling or psychotherapy, undergo random drug testing on a weekly basis, attend a 12-step program at least three times a week and provide verification of attendance, complete a substance abuse assessment, and participate in any recommended drug treatment programs. The court ordered that the mother was to have supervised visits with the children for two hours each week. The mother, who was incarcerated until January 2011, completed a parenting class, attended NA, and completed a substance abuse program while she was in jail, but the parenting class was not the one required by her case plan. She was consistently visiting the children. At the July 13, 2011 six-month review hearing, the Santa Clara