In re D.D. CA3

Filed 8/23/16 In re D.D. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C081001 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD234279, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD236078)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RACHEL B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Rachel B., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code].) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights and argues reversal is required. We affirm.

1

FACTS

The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition in January 2014 alleging D.D., age 5, was at risk of physical harm due to mother’s substance abuse, domestic violence, and the death of an infant sibling while in mother’s care. D.D. was detained and placed with relatives. The juvenile court sustained the petition and mother was offered reunification services. Mother participated in services, made progress, and D.D. was returned to her care under a family maintenance program in August 2014. Mother initially did well in family maintenance, caring for D.D. and her new baby and remaining clean and sober. By March 2015 the Department suspected mother had relapsed into drug use. Mother was having difficulty completing her programs and caring for the minors. By May 2015 the Department was concerned about the minors’ safety while in mother’s care and custody because her housing was unstable, she was leaving the minors in the care of others, she was not drug testing as required, and she was not cooperating with the family maintenance program. D.D. was beginning counseling and appeared somewhat guarded. D.D. also was guarded with the social worker, appearing to have been coached by mother when asked about reported incidents, but when confronted with the truth, admitting it. In June 2015 the Department filed a section 387 petition to remove D.D. from mother’s care and a section 300 petition to remove the infant G.L. as well. The report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the petitions recommended denial of further services for mother. The juvenile court sustained both petitions, terminated services as to D.D., denied services to mother as to G.L., and set a selection and implementation (§ 366.26) hearing. The minors were placed with a paternal cousin of D.D. Mother continued to have twice weekly supervised visits with the minors. D.D.’s therapist informed the social