In re J.W. CA1/5

Filed 7/29/14 In re J.W. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A140783

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1200776) v.

T.M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants. _______________________________________/

T.M. (mother) and Joseph W. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights as to J.W. (daughter) following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing (.26 hearing). Mother contends her “visitation was unfairly ma[int]ained at a minimal level.” Father claims the court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i))) and there was insufficient evidence daughter was adoptable. Mother and father join each other’s briefs. We affirm.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide a brief procedural history and recite only those facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal. Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition Shortly after daughter was born in 2012, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed, and later amended, a petition alleging daughter came within section 300, subdivision (b) because: (1) mother and father “suffer[ed] from chronic mental health issues” limiting their ability to parent daughter safely; (2) mother and father “engaged in ongoing domestic violence” placing daughter at risk of harm; and (3) mother had “a chronic substance abuse problem” interfering with her ability to parent daughter safely.2 The court detained daughter, adjudged her a dependent of the court (§ 300, subd. (b)), and determined by clear and convincing evidence returning her to parental care would cause substantial danger to her physical health. The court determined father was a presumed father. The court ordered reunification services for mother and father and monitored visitation twice a month. Neither parent objected to the visitation order. Daughter was placed with paternal relatives. Status Review and Section 388 Hearings At the conclusion of the six-month review hearing, the court provided additional reunification services for mother and father. The court declined mother’s requests for “more visits” and for unsupervised visits, as well as mother and father’s request for “a little bit of leeway rather than just two visits for one hour a month.” At the conclusion of the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated father’s reunification services and, at mother’s request, authorized the Bureau to offer mother unsupervised visitation. Shortly thereafter, the Bureau moved, pursuant to section 388, to terminate reunification services for mother and set a .26 hearing because mother failed “to produce a clean [drug] test” in violation of a court order. Following a hearing, the court granted the motion, terminated mother’s reunification services, set a .26 hearing, and reduced mother’s supervised