In re Gabriel G. CA3

Filed 4/7/14 In re Gabriel G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

In re GABRIEL G. et al., Persons Coming Under the C074738 Juvenile Court Law.

EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. HUMAN SERVICES, PDP20110064 & PDP20110065) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAURA G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor, Avery G.1 She contends the juvenile court erred in finding neither the beneficial

1 Although mother appealed the dispositional orders for both Gabriel and Avery, she only raises claims as to the dispositional order for Avery. “[O]ur review on appeal ‘is . . . limited to issues which have been adequately raised and supported in [the appellant's opening] brief. [Citations.] Issues not raised in an appellant's brief are deemed waived or abandoned.’ ” (Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6.)” (State Water

1

relationship nor sibling relationship exceptions to adoption applied. We affirm the order of the juvenile court. BACKGROUND In August 2011, the El Dorado County Department of Human Services (Department) filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3002 alleging mother had failed to protect the then three-year-old minor, Avery (hereafter minor), and his then 14-year-old brother, Gabriel, by failing to provide them with appropriate medical treatment and adequate care, and allowing her boyfriend, a registered sex offender, to be around her children. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (d).) Following a contested jurisdictional hearing in January 2012, the juvenile court found the allegations true and sustained the petitions. The children were initially placed in a foster home together, but by October 2011, the Department had placed the minor in a different foster home, where he remained throughout these proceedings. The minor was diagnosed as autistic. The minor had significant developmental delays in speech, cognitive processes, social interactions, and fine motor skills. The minor had adjusted well in his foster home, was beginning to seek physical contact and engage in positive interactions with his caregiver. Although he was still significantly behind developmentally, he was improving. His vocabulary continued to improve, his emotional connection with the foster family had strengthened, and he was working on potty training. The behaviors associated with his anxiety had decreased as he positively adjusted to the foster family. He was very bonded to the foster family.