In re L.P. CA5

Filed 1/10/14 In re L.P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re I.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F067621 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 515849, 515850, Plaintiff and Respondent, 515851)

v. OPINION SANDRA F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Sandra F. appeals the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights to her nine-year-old son I.P., seven-year-old daughter A.P. and six-year-old son M.P. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).1 Sandra contends there is insufficient evidence her children are adoptable. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In December 2010, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over then six-year-old I.P., four-year-old A.P. and three-year-old M.P. (the children) after sustaining allegations that their father, Joseph, sexually molested their 11-year-old half- sister, and Sandra knew but failed to act. The court ordered Sandra and Joseph to participate in reunification services. The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) placed the children together in foster care upon their initial removal in August 2010. They were first placed in a receiving home for one day and then placed in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs. B., who initially were willing to serve as a concurrent placement. However, Mr. and Mrs. B. subsequently declined to do so, and in December 2010, the agency moved the children to the concurrent foster home of Ms. L. In March 2011, the juvenile court appointed a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) for the children. In its report, prepared for the six-month review hearing, the agency informed the juvenile court the children were all developmentally on target and did not need mental health counseling. Sandra visited them regularly under the supervision of a therapist, who reported the visits were appropriate and loving. However, Sandra resisted participating in sexual abuse counseling and being assessed for medication. In April 2011, the juvenile court continued Sandra’s reunification services to the 12-month review hearing, which it set for October 2011.