In re Alexander C. CA3

Filed 2/10/16 In re Alexander C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

In re ALEXANDER C. et al., Persons Coming Under C079460 the Juvenile Court Law.

NEVADA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. Nos. AGENCY, J09341, J09342)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

S.S., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the minors were likely to be adopted in a reasonable time and the juvenile court erred in designating the current caretaker as a prospective adoptive parent. We affirm.

1

FACTS In August 2014, the Nevada County Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition to remove the minors, Alexander C., age 11, and Andrew C., age eight, from mother’s custody due to her neglect of the minors resulting from her severe substance abuse problems. Mother had reunified with the minors in a prior dependency for the same problems in 2011. The court ordered the minors detained and sustained the petition.1 The disposition report stated the minors had been in a temporary placement and were now in a foster home which was not a concurrent placement. Both minors were displaying stress behaviors including incontinence and encopresis and were referred to therapy. Visits raised concerns about mother’s ability to parent. The Agency recommended bypassing services for both parents. At the contested disposition hearing in October 2014, the court adopted the recommendation, set a section 366.26 hearing, and decreased visits to once a week. The Agency’s report in January 2015 for the section 366.26 hearing stated Alexander had made progress with his incontinence and was behaving in more age- appropriate ways, although his emotional control was tenuous at times. Andrew’s encopresis had resolved, although he continued to have some behavioral problems which were decreasing over time. The minors had been in a total of three placements: The first was a one-week emergency placement when first removed; the second was a foster placement where they remained until early January 2015 when the family gave notice; and the third was the current placement which had previously provided respite care. The minors were adjusting well to the new placement and improving in all areas. The foster family agency had some unspecified concerns about the current family adopting the