In re Am. G. CA3

Filed 4/19/16 In re Am. G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AM. G. et al., Persons Coming Under the C080243 Juvenile Court Law.

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. SERVICES AGENCY, 13JVSQ2971901, 14JVSQ3000401) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AMANDA W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Amanda W., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 388, 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her

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

1

petition for modification because she showed both changed circumstances and that the proposed modification would be in the minors’ best interests. Mother argues that, due to the error, the order terminating her parental rights should be reversed and the minors returned to her care. We affirm. FACTS The case began in Placer County in February 2013 with a petition alleging that one-month-old Am. G. was at risk because mother had a 12-year history of methamphetamine abuse and Am. G. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The juvenile court in Placer County sustained the petition without removing Am. G. and transferred the case to Shasta County for disposition. A subsequent (§ 342) petition in July 2013 alleged that both parents tested positive for methamphetamine and the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) recommended removing Am. G. from parental custody. Am. G. was detained in July 2013. The juvenile court sustained the subsequent petition, ordered reunification services for the parents, and set a six-month review hearing. The review report in January 2014 recommended extending services to mother, who had been in inpatient treatment since October 2013, and whose overall compliance with the reunification plan was improving. Mother had admitted daily use of methamphetamine from the time Am. G. was removed until mother entered residential treatment. Although the court had concerns, it adopted the Agency’s recommendation. In February 2014, mother gave birth to Aa. G. The Agency filed a nondetaining petition alleging mother’s prior drug use and recommended that Aa. G. remain with mother in the residential drug treatment program. In May 2014, the court sustained the petition and ordered family maintenance services for mother. Mother was excluded from the program for rule breaking but the court declined to detain Aa. G. The Agency recommended continuing family maintenance services.