In re R.F. CA1/1

Filed 6/13/16 In re R.F. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

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

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN A144952 SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (Sonoma County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 4228-DEP, 4229-DEP) v. MARIA S., Defendant and Appellant.

Three children of Maria S. (Mother) were detained after Mother and her domestic partner (Father), the presumed father of the two younger children, were found to be living in a filthy home and failing properly to supervise the children as a result of the parents’ drug abuse. The parents also had a history of domestic violence. During the year-long reunification period, both parents failed to participate successfully in drug treatment programs, and reunification services were terminated. Immediately prior to the permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26), Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting return of the children to her custody, arguing she had been drug-free for over a year. In the alternative, she resisted their adoption, contending the juvenile court should select guardianship under the “beneficial relationship” exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The juvenile court

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

denied Mother’s section 388 petition and entered a plan of adoption. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In June 2013, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Agency) filed dependency petitions in connection with Mother’s three children, L.F., a 14-year-old girl, R.F., a 10-year-old boy, and J.F., a four-year-old boy.2 The petitions alleged Mother had failed to provide adequate care, supervision, and a safe living environment due to her substance abuse. It was also alleged that Mother and Father engaged in domestic violence. (§ 300, subds. (b), (c).) The jurisdictional and dispositional report stated that Mother and the children lived in an unkempt, filthy home with little or no food and no gas service and in which “multiple family members” smoked marijuana and used methamphetamines. The report claimed Mother had left the boys in the care of their 14-year-old sister for days at a time, Mother and Father were regular users of methamphetamine, and on repeated occasions Father had assaulted Mother while the children were at home. In speaking to the Agency, Mother denied most of the allegations, although she acknowledged Father’s violence. The juvenile court found the jurisdictional allegations true and declared the children wards of the court. Prior to the 12-month review hearing, scheduled for July 2014, the Agency reported that following the children’s detention, Mother had twice entered residential drug treatment programs without completing them. The Agency had since been unable to contact her. Father admitted to having relapsed into drug abuse after a period of sobriety. At the time of the report, the parents were still living together, although both acknowledged that Father’s drug abuse threatened Mother’s sobriety. Both parents had regularly attended weekly visitation with the boys, but the Agency reported they had difficulty “creat[ing] structure and discipline” for the boys and relied on staff to maintain