In re S.R. CA2/6

Filed 5/28/14 In re S.R. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re S.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B252458 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J068138, J068261) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.V. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

A.V. (mother) and M.R. (father) appeal orders (judgments) terminating their parental rights to S.R. and C.R, their children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the juvenile court did not err by finding the children were likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, and 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by terminating parental rights and finding that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption did not apply in this case. We affirm.

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

FACTS On December 30, 2010, a social worker from the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) received information that mother was unable to take care of a child because of her drug addiction. Mother tested positive for methamphetamines at a probation office. When the testing took place, she was with S.R., her daughter who was born in February 2010. Mother had a history of using illegal drugs. In July 2010, she tested positive for Benzodiazepines. On January 19, 2011, a probation officer told HSA that mother violated her probation conditions because of a positive drug test and her failure to enroll in a drug treatment program. Mother was on probation after convictions of child abuse and drug possession. HSA took protective custody of S.R. Father subsequently agreed to a "safety plan," which provided S.R. would stay with him and mother would receive supervised visits. HSA filed a dependency petition for S.R. In March 2011, the juvenile court sustained the petition and found S.R. to be "a person described by subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." It ruled: 1) father would have custody of the child under HSA's supervision, and 2) HSA "shall provide Family Maintenance services to the child and the father" and "Family Reunification services to the child and the mother." In April 2011, mother gave birth to C.R. HSA filed a dependency petition under section 300 for C.R. The juvenile court found C.R. at risk because of "mother's continued abuse of illegal drugs" and because "father failed to intervene to protect the child." It ordered custody for mother provided she remain in the Tender Life Maternity Home. At a June 30, 2011, family maintenance review hearing involving S.R., the juvenile court ordered: 1) "physical custody of the child shall remain with the parents," and 2) the parents must comply with an HSA case plan. It provided a warning that failure to comply could lead to an "out of home placement."