In re Z.M. CA5

Filed 4/5/16 In re Z.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F072062 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 14JD0036) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION D.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Giuliani, Judge. Catherine Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Rise A. Donlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

D.H. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her four-year-old son Z.M. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred in not applying the exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (hereafter “the beneficial relationship exception”). We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In April 2014, the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) responded to a call for assistance from a police officer who reported he was on scene with then two- year-old Z.M., mother, and Z.M.’s father, Robert, who were homeless and walking the streets in extreme heat. The officer also reported that Robert was having a seizure and that emergency medical services were on the way. The officer told the responding social worker that he had provided mother with a place to live, food, clothing, and other resources and that she had refused any help. She continued to panhandle and did not have adequate supplies to care for a young child. The social worker took Z.M. into protective custody and interviewed mother. Mother stated she had been in the area for approximately two and a half months. She had six children, including Z.M.; two were adults, two were teenagers who lived with their father in Michigan, and the sixth (a 9-year-old) lived with his father in Iowa. She denied abusing drugs, stating, “don’t f***kin[g] ask me that shit” and refused to drug test. She said the family lived with her uncle or in a hotel but would not discuss how she provided for Z.M. She also refused to accompany the social worker to the agency to discuss how the social worker might release Z.M. to her custody. The juvenile court ordered Z.M. detained on a first amended petition, alleging that mother and Robert endangered Z.M. by their willful or negligent failure to provide him adequate clothing and shelter under section 300, subdivision (b) (subdivision (b)