In re X.G. CA3

Filed 12/11/15 In re X.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Trinity) ----

In re X.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C079227 Court Law.

TRINITY COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. 13JU0044A, SERVICES, 13JU0044B, 13JU0044C, 13JU0044D) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J. G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.G., mother of the minors, appeals from orders entered at the selection and implementation hearing terminating parental rights as to two of the minors (M.H. and X.G.) and placing the other two in long-term foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 395). Mother contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the two younger minors were likely to be adopted. We affirm.

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

1

FACTS In September 2013, the Trinity County Health and Human Services (Agency) filed a petition to remove the four minors, T.G., age 15; M.J.H., age 12; M.H., age 10; and X.G. age 5, from mother’s custody due to domestic violence in the home and mother’s substance abuse, which resulted in neglect and emotional damage to the minors.2 The minors were detained and placed with a relative. The court sustained the petition in October 2013. The disposition report recommended continued foster care and reunification services for mother. T.G. and M.J.H. had severe anger and emotional issues. Both M.H. and X.G. needed therapy. X.G. had behavioral issues due to witnessing violence; however, the foster parent reported that X.G.’s anger had largely subsided. The court adopted the Agency’s recommendation. By March 2014, the Agency sought to temporarily terminate visits because they were having a negative effect on the minors. T.G. and M.J.H. were placed in group homes while M.H. and X.G. remained in the original foster home. The court decreased visits to twice a month. The report for the six-month review hearing stated M.H. was doing well in school, continuing therapy and stabilizing mentally and emotionally. X.G. had transitioned from special education classes to regular classes and was doing better with continued therapy. At the six-month review hearing the court continued services for mother and ordered visits to remain conjoint with the minors’ therapists. The 12-month review report recommended continued placement and termination of mother’s services. T.G. had run away and his whereabouts were unknown; M.J.H. remained in a group home and, although he was showing stress behavior, he was being