In re Anna M. CA2/6

Filed 1/23/14 In re Anna M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re ANNA M., a Person Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B250445 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J069092) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court orders terminating parental rights to his daughter, Anna, and establishing adoption as her permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).1 Father contends that the finding of Anna's adoptability is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. The court also terminated the parental rights of Anna's mother, Shelly G. She is not a party to this appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2012 mother gave birth to Anna, and the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) removed Anna from her care. Father was in custody. On October 30, 2012, HSA filed a petition alleging that mother and father were unable to protect and support Anna. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) HSA placed Anna with prospective adoptive parents in late October. Beginning in December 2012, father had weekly one-hour supervised visits with Anna. On January 22, 2013, the juvenile court ordered a bypass of reunification services for father because he had failed to reunify with other children "due to [his] unaddressed drug addiction" and a history of domestic violence. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11), (13).) Father continued attending supervised visits with Anna. The HSA personnel who observed their visits did not detect any significant relationship between them. On June 20, 2013, the juvenile court conducted contested section 366.26 proceedings to select Anna's permanent plan. It admitted the section 366.26 report in which HSA recommended that the court terminate the parental rights of both parents and select adoption as her permanent plan. HSA reported that Anna was still in the home of the prospective adoptive parents who had cared for her for most of her life. The social worker described Anna as a happy baby with an upbeat personality who has "met all of her educational milestones." Father testified he had visited Anna consistently. During their visits, she smiled and was excited to see him. He cared for her, talked to her, comforted her, and played with her. She reached for him at the beginning and end of each visit. The juvenile court found that father failed to establish that the parental benefit exception precluded its selecting adoption as the preferred plan for Anna. The court terminated the parental rights of both parents, found that Anna was adoptable, and ordered adoption planning services.