In re K.S. CA3

Filed 3/7/16 In re K.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

In re K.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C079772 Court Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. SERVICES AGENCY, 13JVSQ2979101, 13JVSQ2979201, Plaintiff and Respondent, 13JVSQ2979301)

v.

Rosanna S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Rosanna S. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court abused its

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

discretion because she established the existence of the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Disagreeing with her contention, we will affirm the juvenile court order. BACKGROUND We provide the facts relevant to the contention on appeal. In July 2013, Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (the agency) filed a section 300 petition as to minors K.S. (aged four), A.S. (aged three), and R.S., Jr. (aged 11 months), alleging that mother, who had substance abuse and mental health problems, abandoned the minors with a stranger at a homeless persons’ camp. R.S., Sr., the minors’ father, has been incarcerated since the start of these proceedings. He did not receive reunification services and he is not a party to this appeal. In September 2013, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition, placed the minors in a foster home, and granted reunification services to mother, with two 2-hour visits per week allowed. From September 2013 through February 2014, mother attended only 27 out of 43 scheduled visits with the minors. However, when mother did visit, the visits mostly went well. But in April 2014, the juvenile court terminated mother’s services because she had not done any of the following: attained stability in her way of living, obtained suitable housing, complied with drug testing and treatment, visited the minors consistently, or resolved her mental health problems. In July 2014, mother’s visits were reduced to one hour per month. After that, she did not miss any visits. In September 2014, the agency’s section 366.26 report recommended identifying adoption as the permanent plan for the minors, but continuing the section 366.26 hearing for 180 days to identify an appropriate adoptive family because the minors’ current placement was not a prospective adoptive home. In November 2014, the juvenile court adopted the agency’s recommended findings and continued the section 366.26 hearing to May 2015.