In re Gary G. CA2/6

Filed 3/17/14 In re Gary G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re GARY G., a Person Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B250613 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J068869) (Ventura County) VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. LAURIE G. and CHRISTOPHER G., Appellants.

Laurie G. and Christopher G. appeal from the July 26, 2013 order terminating their parental rights and freeing their five-year-old son, Gary G., for 1 adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Appellants contend that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception precludes adoption. (§ 266.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(1).) We affirm. Procedural History On June 8, 2012, Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) removed Gary because of appellants' domestic violence and substance abuse. Appellants had a

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.

lengthy history of domestic violence dating back to 2007 when father hit mother while she was pregnant with Gary. On June 12, 2012, after father was arrested for domestic violence, HSA filed a dependency petition for failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) and no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the trial court declared Gary a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services. At the six-month review hearing, HSA reported that father refused to sign the case plan, missed all his drug tests, and refused to participate in alcohol/drug counseling. During the reunification period, father was arrested for: possession of a controlled substance (September 4, 2012); possession of a controlled substance, vandalism, and disobeying a domestic court order (September 10, 2012); and vandalism and disobeying a domestic court order (November 18, 2012). Mother obtained a restraining order but continued seeing father until he was arrested November 18, 2012. Before the six month review hearing, mother called the police seven or eight times to enforce the restraining order. HSA reported that mother was not attending a substance abuse treatment program, missed 14 drug tests, and declined to participate in one-on-one domestic violence counseling. Mother was offered unsupervised visits if she remained clean and sober, but tested positive for methamphetamine on two occasions. The trial court terminated services on February 20, 2013, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Father gave notice of intent to file a writ petition but the matter was dismissed as abandoned on April 3, 2013. (B247129.) At the section 366.26 hearing, HSA recommended that the trial court terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent placement plan. It was uncontroverted that Gary was adoptable and that the paternal grandmother was 100 percent committed to adopting Gary. On the issue of beneficial parent-child relationship, the social worker testified that appellants had not addressed their substance abuse and domestic violence problems and were still seeing each other. Father missed three months of scheduled