In re Frank M. CA5

Filed 4/28/14 In re Frank M. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re FRANK M. III et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F068265 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. 127685 & 127686) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION FRANK M., JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. William D. Palmer, Judge. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Kelley D. Scott, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Frank M., Jr. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 as to his two sons, now five and six years of age. Frank contends the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the exception to adoption contained in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), hereafter referred to as the “beneficial relationship” exception. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In October 2011, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) removed Frank’s two sons, then three and four, from his custody after substantiating a report Frank was using methamphetamine and neglecting the children. The children were in Frank’s custody because their mother, Patricia, was a drug abuser. The department placed the children together in foster care. In February 2012, the juvenile court adjudged the children its dependents and ordered Frank to participate in child neglect, parenting and substance abuse counseling and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered two hours of weekly, supervised visits for Frank. The court denied Patricia reunification services. Frank received 12 months of reunification services but did not make any progress toward reunifying with his sons. He did not complete substance abuse counseling, regularly tested positive for marijuana and missed numerous visits with the children. In February 2013, at a contested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Frank’s reunification services, reduced visitation to every other week for one hour and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court also found that Patricia’s whereabouts were unknown. In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate Frank’s and Patricia’s parental rights and select adoption as the