In re P.C. CA3

Filed 4/17/14 In re P.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

In re P.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075201 Law.

COLUSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. JU3655) AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

I.V., mother of the minor P.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends

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

1

there was insufficient evidence that her continued custody of P.C. was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to him. Disagreeing, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2012, the Colusa County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of minor P.C. (then 11 years old). The petition was also filed on behalf of P.C.’s half siblings Ad. (then almost three years old), A. (then two years old), and An. (then two months old).2 The petition alleged use of methamphetamine by the parents and that Ad. and A. tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother had also failed to follow up with prenatal care for An., missed her scheduled caesarean section delivery, and tested positive for methamphetamine at his birth. Prior to An.’s birth, the minors had been the subject of a previous dependency case, resulting in P.C.’s detention from parental custody in August 2010. Mother had a history of alcohol abuse and father was incarcerated for domestic violence. The previous dependency had been terminated in August 2011. The minors were found to be Indian children but the tribe decided not to intervene. Instead, the tribe asked to receive notices of hearings and to be kept informed of the parents’ progress and any decision to pursue adoption or termination of parental rights. The juvenile court sustained the petitions on June 4, 2012; Ad., A., and An. were placed together in foster care. P.C. was placed in a separate home, the same home he had been placed during the previous dependency case. The parents engaged in services and