In re R.H. CA4/3

Filed 7/18/16 In re R.H. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

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

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G052902 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. DP024980, v. DP024981, DP025118)

M.O. et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Judge. Affirmed. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.O.

Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ma.H. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minors. * * * INTRODUCTION The juvenile court found, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, that R.H. (now four years old), J.H. (now three years old), and Mi.H. (now two years old) were adoptable, and that none of the exceptions to termination of parental rights applied. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The court therefore terminated the parental rights of Ma.H. (father) and M.O. (mother). Both father and mother separately appealed. Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings, we affirm the order.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Based on injuries inflicted on J.H. by mother, the juvenile court declared J.H., as well as his siblings, Mc.H., R.H., and Mi.H., to be dependents of the juvenile court. The court also denied reunification services to mother and father for all the children, except Mc.H., and found all four children would suffer detriment if they were to remain in mother and father’s custody and control. The facts leading to the court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders are detailed in two previous unpublished opinions, Ma.H. v. Superior Court (Aug. 27, 2015, G051997) and In re Mc.H. (Jan. 8, 2016, G052211.) Mc.H. and R.H. were originally placed together with their maternal grandmother, while J.H. and Mi.H. were placed together in a licensed foster home.