In re N. H. CA3

Filed 8/26/20 In re N. H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C090975 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239586) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant K.H., mother of the minor N.H., appeals from the juvenile court’s exit orders granting father sole legal and physical custody of the minor and terminating dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 390, 395.)1 She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting father sole legal custody of the minor. We disagree and affirm.

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

1

I. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2018, Contra Costa County Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor, N.H. (then age 6), based on mother’s failure to protect the minor, pursuant to subdivisions (g) and (j). Petitions were also filed on behalf of the minor’s 17-year-old sibling and two-month-old half sibling, who are not subjects of this appeal. Mother had 17 prior child protective service referrals. The minor and his infant half sibling were ordered detained.2 The minor’s noncustodial father, R.O. (father), who had come forward and requested placement, was provided supervised visits. Mother was permitted to call the minor before 5:00 p.m. three times per week, but this provision was revoked two weeks later because mother was repeatedly calling after 5:00 p.m. The minor was released to father’s care at the August 27, 2018 hearing. The social worker and the visitation supervisor had, after some difficulty, managed to arrange for mother to visit N.H. on Sunday afternoons and to place her calls to the minor between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. Mother had not wanted to visit on Sundays, due to her church schedule, and said father ignored some of her telephone calls to the minor because the minor was either sick or it was past the minor’s bedtime. Mother’s visits, however, went well. The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition on October 15, 2018. The disposition report recommended the minor be adjudged a dependent and remain placed with father. The minor had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and had developmental delays as a result of the disorder. Father was pursuing the services of the Alta California Regional Center (Alta Regional) to assist with the minor’s needs. Father was also actively involved in the minor’s education. The minor had an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and was doing well in school. Due to father’s previous lack of involvement in the minor’s life, and the minor’s special needs, it was recommended