In re J.J. CA3

Filed 1/19/16 In re J.J. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re J.J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C077920 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. J06087) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAURA J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Laura J., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at the six-month review hearing terminating her reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395; 366.21, subd. (e).)1 Mother contends the court erred in terminating her reunification services because the proper statutory scheme was not employed.

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

1

Alternatively, mother argues the court erred in terminating her services because there was a substantial probability the minors could be returned to her custody by the 12-month review date. We affirm. FACTS In March 2011, Alameda County Social Services filed a petition to remove two of mother’s five children, S.H., age five, and V.J., age six. The other three children, S.D., age eight; J.J., age six; and S.J., age three, remained in mother’s custody.2 The petition alleged mother physically abused S.H. and V.J., had neglected all the minors, and her mental disabilities interfered with her ability to care for the minors. The juvenile court sustained the petition. The disposition report noted mother was developmentally delayed and had not used services which were available to her in the past. At the disposition hearing, the court placed S.D. with the maternal grandmother and dismissed jurisdiction as to her. S.H. and V.J. were placed in foster care with a reunification plan and J.J. and S.J. remained with mother under a family maintenance plan. By September 2011, mother had moved to another county and was accessing services through the Regional Center. Family maintenance and family reunification services were continued. The next review report recommended another six months of services. Mother was beginning overnight visits with S.H. and V.J. In March 2012, the court ordered further services. The court granted a seven-day trial visit for S.H. and V.J. and returned the two minors to mother’s custody in July 2012 with family maintenance services.