In re C.M. CA3

Filed 3/4/14 In re C.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

In re C.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, C074412

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12JVSQ2920701)

v.

T.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.W., the mother of the minor C.M., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders placing the minor with the father, R.M., and terminating the dependency. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 300.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to protect the minor from the paternal grandfather. We conclude the decision to terminate the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

dependency with placement with the father was within the juvenile court’s discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2012, the seven-year-old minor was temporarily placed in a foster home after mother was arrested on Solano County warrants for making terrorist threats against father and his girlfriend. Mother was on probation in Shasta County at the time, and one of mother’s conditions was not to contact father or his girlfriend. Father lived in Fairfield, and was a registered sex offender with convictions for sexual battery on a minor less than 18 years old and spousal battery. He had participated in a sex offender treatment program and completed 52 weeks of anger management classes. The Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition in February 2012, alleging jurisdiction over the minor based on mother’s arrest, her inability to make appropriate plans for the minor’s care after her incarceration, her failure to contact her probation officer, the officer smelling alcohol on her, the family’s child welfare history, father’s criminal history, and his status as a sex offender registrant. The juvenile court detained the minor later that month. The February 2012 jurisdiction report stated mother was incarcerated at the Solano County jail awaiting criminal proceedings. The minor visited father and later reported to the foster parent that it was a good visit and he wanted to see his father again. The minor told the social worker he loved his father and felt safe with him but was worried about getting a stepmother. He previously visited father for 30 days, and “had a good time.” If the minor could not be with mother, he would prefer to be with his father. A social worker reported father’s home was very clean with plenty of food in the refrigerator and no apparent safety issues. Based on the state of father’s home, his positive relationship with the minor, and mother’s continued incarceration in Solano County, the Agency recommended transferring the case to Solano County.