In re L.J. CA3

Filed 10/27/15 In re L.J. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079451

v. (Super. Ct. No. JD234116)

S.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

S.W. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to minor L.J. She contends the juvenile court erred in finding the parent-child relationship exception did not apply to preclude termination of her parental rights. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s finding of inapplicability of the parent- child relationship exception to termination of mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s orders terminating mother’s parental rights. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prior to L.J.’s birth in December 2013, mother’s parental rights already had been terminated for another of her children. As a result, a psychological evaluation of mother

1

was completed before L.J. was born. The evaluation concluded mother would be “able to care for baby appropriately. However, given patient’s history . . . report [was] filed.” After L.J. was born, hospital staff reported to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) that they had “grave concerns” regarding the child’s safety. They described mother as sweet and cooperative but slow to respond, and said she did not make eye contact. When they asked her about living arrangements after she and the child were discharged from the hospital, mother appeared confused but said she was going home with relatives. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1 petition was filed on December 1, 2013. The Department alleged the child was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to mother’s emotional and mental health issues. The Department further alleged mother was not taking prescribed medication, suffered from severe depression and somatic complaints, and her parental rights had been terminated for a half-sibling. Mother, who was previously diagnosed with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, told the social worker she intended to return to counseling and resume her psychotropic medications. But she had nowhere to live with the child after they were discharged from the hospital. L.J. was placed in foster care and mother was granted reunification services. Between December 27, 2013, and June 13, 2014, mother had approximately 35 visits with L.J., all of which were supervised. On September 3, 2014, L.J. was placed with foster parents who were interested in adopting her. By the six-month review hearing in December 2014, mother had completed two parenting classes, participated in weekly anger management and depression groups, and was living in an apartment with provisions for L.J. Mother also saw her psychiatrist