In re S.U. CA3

Filed 5/19/16 In re S.U. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re S.U. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C080798 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD234519, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD234520, JD234521)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.R., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court denying her petitions for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her petitions for modification without a hearing and further erred in failing to find she had established the beneficial parental relationship exception to the preference for adoption as a permanent plan. We affirm.

1

FACTS In March 2014, as a result of a police raid, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed petitions alleging two-month-old twins S.U. and Y.U. and three-year-old A.U. were at risk of physical harm due to parental drug possession and use and the filthy, unsafe condition of the home. Mother admitted she and father used drugs when the minors were not present but said she had nothing to do with the drugs and guns found in the home. The minors were detained in April 2014. The jurisdiction/disposition report stated both parents tested positive for drugs. During the first week in placement A.U. was dealing with the trauma of the raid and subsequent removal by acting out the police raid in play. This behavior decreased over time. A.U. disclosed that father beat mother. A.U. also showed some learning delays due to lack of exposure to concepts and problem solving. In May 2014 the court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services for the parents. In August 2014 the juvenile court authorized placement with the paternal great-great-aunt. The six-month review report filed in November 2014 recommended further services for mother. Mother had no visits from April 2014 to October 2014 because she was in custody. Thereafter, mother had twice-weekly supervised visitation. Because father had been in custody since April 2014 and had not participated in services, the report recommended termination of his services. The minors continued to do well in their relative placement. The juvenile court terminated father’s reunification services and ordered additional services for mother. The 12-month review report, filed in April 2015, recommended termination of mother’s services. Mother tested positive for cocaine in March 2015 and returned to treatment but failed to complete the drug treatment portion of her case plan. Mother visited the minors sporadically but spent her time sleeping or texting friends rather than interacting with the minors. A.U., who was in therapy to deal with trauma suffered prior