In re S.S. CA3

Filed 3/3/16 In re S.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C080411 Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. J06774) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JANIE S. ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Janie S., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 395.) Mother argues the court erred in terminating her parental rights because she established both the

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

1

beneficial parental relationship exception and the sibling relation exception to the preference for adoption. Mother also questions whether minor’s counsel had an actual conflict in representing both minors because the permanent plan for S. S. and the permanent plan for her half sibling differed. We affirm. FACTS In May 2014, the San Joaquin Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition to detain the infant, S. S., because mother and S. S. tested positive for methamphetamine at the minor’s birth and the minor was premature and showed signs of drug withdrawal.2 Mother had used multiple drugs, including methamphetamine, during pregnancy. Mother completed drug rehabilitation in 2002 but relapsed and currently had no suitable housing for the minor. The juvenile court ordered the minor detained. In August 2014, the court sustained the petition. The court increased the frequency of mother’s visitation with S. S. and set a disposition hearing. The disposition report filed in August 2014 stated that the minor was originally placed in a foster home then moved to the same placement as her half sibling, M. S. Mother refused residential drug treatment and was not participating in any services. Mother visited the minors three times a week, once at the visit center and two other visits that were facilitated by the maternal grandmother. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court adopted the Agency’s recommendations for reunification services and ordered mother to drug court. The Agency’s six-month review report in February 2015 confirmed that M. S. was placed with the maternal uncle in December 2014 after the death of her grandmother while S. S. remained in foster care. The minors visited each other during mother’s three- weekly supervised visits. Mother was terminated from drug court and parenting class but