In re A.M. CA1/4

Filed 8/16/21 In re A.M. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A161780

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. J18-00432) J.W. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

J.W. (mother) and M.M. (father) appeal an order terminating their parental rights to A.M., their now three-year-old daughter and selecting adoption as the child’s permanent plan under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother contends the trial court erred in applying the parental benefit exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). Father joins mother’s argument and contends that if the order is reversed as to her, it must be reversed as to him as well. We find no error and affirm the order terminating parental rights.

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

1

Background In April 2018, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the bureau) filed a dependency petition alleging that at the time of A.M.’s birth, both she and her mother tested positive for methadone, benzodiazepines and oxycodone. A.M. suffered from significant drug withdrawal symptoms and remained in the hospital for almost two months. In June 2018, the court found that A.M. came within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b), based on mother’s substance abuse. At the dispositional hearing held later that month, A.M. was placed with her maternal grandparents. By December 2018, the court found that mother had been maintaining her sobriety and A.M. was returned to her custody. In January 2020, the bureau filed a supplemental petition seeking to move A.M. to a more restrictive placement. The petition alleged, among other things, that the parents had been involved in three domestic violence incidents in 2019 and that the parents continued to violate prior court orders that prohibited them from having contact with each other. The court approved the emergency placement of A.M. with her maternal grandparents and sustained the allegations of the supplemental petition. At the dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition, the court terminated reunification services for both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing.2 The section 366.26 hearing took place on November 19, 2020. The social worker’s report, admitted into evidence at the hearing, indicated that since