In re P.P. CA3

Filed 1/6/15 In re P.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re P.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C076504 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD233125, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD233126, JD233127)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

V.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

S.T., the mother, and V.P., the father of the minors P.P., R.P., and Va.P., appeal from the juvenile court’s orders denying mother’s petition for modification and terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 388, 366.26.)1 They contend

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

1

the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the petition for modification seeking placement with a paternal second cousin. We affirm. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2013, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed dependency petitions (§ 300) alleging jurisdiction over five- month-old P.P., 16-month-old R.P., and two-and-a-half-year-old Va.P. The petitions alleged the parents used methamphetamine, and failed to provide adequate housing, medical attention, and supervision of the minors in spite of DHHS providing informal services to them since October 2012. On March 28, 2013, the juvenile court detained the minors in the home of the paternal second cousin L.L. The juvenile court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services for both parents in May 2013. An August 2013 addendum report detailed problems regarding the minors’ placement with L.L. The criminal record of L.L.’s estranged husband prevented the kinship unit from granting a waiver. In addition, L.L. gave up her foster parent license in 2007 after a substantiated allegation of misconduct. As a result, the juvenile court removed the minors from L.L.’s home in September 2013. Later that month, L.L.’s brother V.L. offered his home for possible placement of the minors. DHHS began assessing V.L.’s home for possible placement. The October 2013 six-month report stated noted parents were homeless since July 2013 following their eviction for not paying rent. The parents were dismissed from drug court for noncompliance in July 2013. In October 2013, the juvenile court terminated the parents’ reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. In January 2014, both parents filed section 388 petitions seeking reinstatement of services based on their enrollment in various programs. The juvenile court denied the petitions in February 2014.