In re Alexis D. CA1/3

Filed 1/30/15 In re Alexis D. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

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

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A140975

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J12-00904) N.D., Defendant and Appellant.

N.D. (mother) appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights and placing her daughter Alexis D. for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother claims a prior order of the juvenile court improperly terminated her family reunification services without a determination that return of the child to her custody would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, and the lack of a detriment finding invalidates the later termination of parental rights. We shall reject the claims and affirm the order.

1 All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Statement of Facts2 Mother has an extensive history with child protective services and the criminal justice system arising from drug addiction. The dependency petition at issue here was filed by the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (bureau) in June 2012, shortly after mother gave birth to Alexis. The child was born in a garage and, when transferred to a hospital, tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother also tested positive for methamphetamine and admitted to using the drug throughout her pregnancy. A petition was filed as to both Alexis and an older sister, Jordan, who was then almost three years old and had been living with her maternal grandmother since August 2011. The jurisdictional hearing was held on June 19, 2012. Mother was provided notice but did not attend. The court sustained allegations that mother was unable to provide care for the children due to mother’s “longstanding substance abuse of methamphetamine” and had made no provision for Jordan’s support since August 2011. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) The next day, the bureau discovered the maternal grandmother had a conviction for substance abuse. The children were removed from the grandmother’s care and placed together in a foster home. Mother contacted the bureau in late June 2012 and, shortly thereafter, was referred to legal counsel. Mother appeared with counsel at a July 12 hearing. Mother was jailed on auto theft charges but released from custody shortly before the August 23, 2012 disposition hearing. The court granted mother reunification services and twice-monthly supervised visitation. The case plan required mother to remain drug- free and to complete substance abuse, counseling, and parenting programs. Jordan’s presumed father, who had prior drug convictions, could not be located. Alexis’s alleged father had recently been released from jail and was undergoing paternity testing. No services were provided for him until paternity could be established.