In re J.M. CA2/6

Filed 12/18/14 In re J.M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B255555 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J069125) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

William M. (Father) and M.S. (Mother) appeal the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights to J.M., a child coming under the juvenile court law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the trial court's finding that J.M. was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time is supported by substantial evidence, and 2) the trial court did not err in terminating parental rights before the completion of a home study. We affirm. FACTS In November 2012, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a juvenile dependency petition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b) & (g).) HSA alleged Mother had been arrested for child endangerment after she admitted to law

enforcement that "she attempted to suffocate" J.M., her five month old son. HSA said Mother had a history of mental and emotional problems and Father "failed to protect the child from the mother's actions." On January 29, 2013, the trial court sustained the petition. It found: 1) Father "does not have a stable living situation and is unable to provide appropriate care for the child"; 2) Mother has a history of "mental and/or emotional problems and has been diagnosed as having Paranoia, Depression and Anxiety"; and 3) Mother is "unable to provide adequate care for the child as evidenced by [her] disorganized thought process and dissociative state." The court declared J.M. to be a dependent of the juvenile court. It removed J.M. from the custody of his parents, placed him in a foster home, and ordered the parents to participate in case plan services. HSA provided Mother and Father with a variety of service referrals. The parents did not participate in the reunification services HSA provided. They did not cooperate with the HSA social worker. At a meeting with the social worker, the parents "refused to sign the case plan." They also "refused to sign a release of information." On August 8, 2013, the trial court found Mother and Father "have refused to participate in case plan services." It said, "The extent of progress made by [Mother and Father] toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been nil." It terminated family reunification services for both parents. In an addendum report filed March 20, 2014, HSA recommended that parental rights for both parents be terminated and that J.M. "be freed for adoption with the identified confidential foster family whom the child is currently placed with." It said J.M. had been with that family since October 2013, and he had some behavioral problems when he was initially placed there; "but with Early Intervention services, the behaviors have diminished." The adoption social worker noted that these prospective adoptive parents want to adopt J.M. She said J.M. is adoptable because he is "healthy, attractive and friendly." Mother and Father did not appear for the contested section 366.26 hearing. The trial court found there was "no compelling evidence or substantial evidence of a