In re A.A. CA5

Filed 3/16/16 In re A.A. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

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

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F072126 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ300177) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION M.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Judge. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

M.A. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 for her two- and one-year-old daughters. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in not applying the exception to adoption found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), (hereafter “the beneficial relationship exception”). The beneficial relationship exception pertains where the evidence supports “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child [because] [t]he parents maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY These dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2013, when the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took then three-month-old A.A. into protective custody after mother, then 15 years old and a juvenile dependent, broke her mother’s window and left with A.A. The reporting party stated that mother was “rough” with A.A. and was receiving mental health services but was out of control and aggressive, and repeatedly ran away from home. Mother had been removed from her parents because of her out of control behavior and placed with her mother on family maintenance services. At the time, mother was being treated for bipolar disorder. The juvenile court ordered A.A. detained pursuant to a dependency petition filed by the department, and ordered the department to offer mother parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health evaluations, and random drug testing. The court also ordered supervised visits to occur a minimum of twice a week. The department placed A.A. in foster care.