In re M.M. CA1/1

Filed 12/12/14 In re M.M. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

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

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN A141184 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (Sonoma County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 3782-DEP) v. L.M., Defendant and Appellant.

L.M. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to her five-year-old daughter, M.M. Mother contends the trial court misconstrued her burden of proving the termination of her rights would be detrimental to M.M. under the beneficial relationship exception. We disagree, and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The three children of Mother, M.M., then age 23 months, and her twin brothers, then both one month old, were the subject of a November 2011 dependency petition. The petition alleged neglect, failure to protect, and failure to support due to serious domestic violence between Mother and her husband, the minors’ presumed father (Father), and substance abuse by Father and Mother. The minors were found to be dependents of the court in December 2011.

Reunification services were granted to Mother, but denied to Father as a result of his history of chronic substance abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 361.5, subd. (b)(13).) At the time of the six-month review in June 2012, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Agency) recommended terminating reunification services to Mother as a result of her continued contact with Father, erratic compliance with a substance abuse program, and inability to accept responsibility for her conduct. The Agency had placed M.M. in the home of her maternal great-aunt and uncle. After a contested six-month review hearing in September 2012, the juvenile court granted Mother an additional six months of services. At the time of the 12-month hearing in December 2012, the Agency recommended M.M. remain in her current foster home and again recommended termination of Mother's reunification services. After a series of evidentiary hearings, the court terminated her services and scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26. At the final hearing, Mother made an oral request for a bonding study between her and M.M. so she could show there was a beneficial relationship between them. After the court denied the request on procedural grounds, Mother filed a posthearing written request for such a bonding study, which the court also denied. In separate proceedings, this court (1) denied Mother’s petition for extraordinary writ directing the juvenile court to restore reunification services (L.T. v. Superior Court (Aug. 9, 2013, A138652) [nonpub. opn.]) and (2) affirmed the denial of her bonding study request (In re M.M. (May 20, 2014, A139681) [nonpub. opn.]). The Agency filed its permanent plan report in August 2013. The social worker found M.M. to be “a bright, engaging girl with a beautiful smile” who was “playful, affectionate and kind.” At her most recent assessment, she was found to be developmentally on target with no additional services needed. She had forged a close relationship and bond with both her maternal great-uncle and aunt, who had been identified as her prospective adoptive parents since May 27, 2012. The social worker