In re Mo. N. CA2/6

Filed 6/16/15 In re Mo. N. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Mo. N., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B260053 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J069030) (Ventura County) VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. MATEO N. and M. N., Defendants and Appellants.

Mateo N. (father) and M. N. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to their daughter, Mo. N., and freeing Mo. for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Appellants contend that Mo. is not adoptable and that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception bars the child's adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On August 30, 2012, Mo. (age 22 months) and three older siblings were placed in protective custody due to appellants' substance abuse, domestic violence, and reports that father was selling cocaine out of the home. Mo. was anemic, had a bladder infection, suffered development delays, and her body weight and height was below the

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code. 1

one percentile for infants her age. Mo. also exhibited aggressive behavior, hitting people, and pulling hair. The trial court sustained a dependency petition for general neglect (§ 300, subd. (b)), ordered reunification services, and placed Mo. in foster care. In March 2013, Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) returned Mo. to mother's care for a 60- day extended visit. Services were extended but mother struggled with depression, was not taking her prescribed medication, was afraid to be on her own, and feared she would "self- sabotage" the case plan. Mother completed a drug rehabilitation program and a parenting program, but missed four random drug tests, stopped attending 12-step program meetings, and did not follow up on in-home therapeutic support services and a domestic violence program. HSA removed Mo. a second time in January 2014, after mother tested positive for methamphetamine on two occasions (January 29, 2014 and January 31, 2014) and was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Mother admitted that she had been using methamphetamine since October 2013 and claimed that she suffered a relapse "due to stress" and "too much time on her hands." During a January 29, 2014 home visit, the social worker observed trash on the floor, dirty dishes and pans on the kitchen counter and stove top, and piles of laundry on the floor. Father declined HSA's offer to take custody of Mo. and claimed that he was unable to care for Mo. due to his work schedule. When Mo. was placed in foster care, father was offered unsupervised visits but opted for supervised, one-day-a-week visits. The trial court terminated mother's services on February 27, 2014, and continued services for father. (§ 387.) At the 18-month review hearing, the trial court terminated services for father and set the matter for a permanent placement hearing. Following a contested section 366.26 hearing, the court found that Mo. was adoptable and that the parent-child and sibling relationship exceptions did not apply. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) & (v).) Adoptability