In re Taylor F. CA3

Filed 9/10/15 In re Taylor F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

In re TAYLOR F. et al., Persons Coming Under the C078717 Juvenile Court Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. 2715502, SERVICES AGENCY, 2715602, 2907602)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C. H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C. H., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 395.) Mother contends substantial

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

evidence does not support the juvenile court’s findings that the minors were likely to be adopted. We affirm. FACTS The minors Taylor F. and Mackenzie F. were first adjudged dependents in 2007 due, in part, to parental substance abuse. The parents successfully reunified with the minors and the dependency was terminated in 2009. Jesse P. was first adjudged a dependent in 2011 also due, in part, to parental substance abuse. Mother again successfully reunified with the minor and the dependency was terminated in 2012. In October 2013, a petition was filed to detain all three of the minors, Taylor, age 14, Mackenzie, age 11, and Jesse, age 2, due to mother’s substance abuse and behavior, which put the minors at risk of serious emotional distress. The juvenile court ordered the minors detained. The minors were placed together in foster care. The two older minors were afraid to visit mother and, after a few visits, said they did not want to visit her because she was “crazy.” Both older girls agreed to participate in therapy. The court sustained the petition, found mother’s visitation was detrimental to the minors, and canceled visitation. The disposition report requested the court grant permission for a 29-day visit with out-of-state relatives. In June 2014, the court adjudged the minors dependents, ordered services to mother, and granted the requested 29-day visit. In August 2014, at a 60-day status review hearing, the court terminated mother’s services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The December 2014 assessment for the section 366.26 hearing recommended termination of parental rights. The minors had been in a proposed adoptive placement with out-of-state relatives since August 2014. The minors were all healthy, developmentally on target with no behavioral concerns, and the two older minors were doing well in school. The proposed adoptive parents were in their thirties, with three young children. They had no criminal or child abuse history and their relative home