In re M.D. CA5

Filed 6/2/15 In re M.D. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F070536 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 516661) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION M.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

M.J. (father) appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)1 for his two-year-old son M.D. He contends he met his burden of proving under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) that severing his parental rights would be detrimental to M.D. We affirm. LEGAL BACKGROUND Section 366.26 governs the proceedings at which the juvenile court must select a permanent placement for a child adjudged its dependent. If the court determines it is likely the child will be adopted, the statute requires the court to terminate parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) The court’s prior findings that it would be detrimental to return the child to parental custody and its order terminating reunification services constitute a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights unless the court finds that one of the six exceptions specified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) would render termination of parental rights detrimental to the child. At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court determined that terminating father’s parental rights would not be detrimental to M.D. under the beneficial relationship exception. The beneficial relationship exception states: “The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Dependency proceedings were initiated in this case in April 2013 when newborn M.D. and his mother Michelle tested positive for amphetamine. M.D. was not the first of Michelle’s children to be so affected by her drug use. A decade before, she lost custody of her two other children after they were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court.