In re T.P. CA1/1

Filed 1/18/22 In re T.P. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN A163149 SERVICES AGENCY, (San Francisco City & County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. JD18-3279) v. T.R., Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant T.R. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her three-year-old son, T.P. She argues that the juvenile court failed to properly weigh whether the parental-benefit exception to termination applied. We disagree and affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) received a report in late November 2018, when T.P. was an infant, that his father punched Mother and tried to choke her, which caused T.P. to hit his head on a wall. The Agency initiated these proceedings the next month when it filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code

1

section 300.1 T.P. was placed with a longtime family friend, and soon after with an adult half sibling. Further investigation by the Agency revealed that Mother had a history of methamphetamine use and that she had been arrested for drug crimes, and she and T.P.’s father had a history of domestic violence. The parents were “homeless and couch surfing.” They had both suffered child abuse when they were children, and a social worker stated it was “evident that [the parents] have unresolved trauma and substance abuse issues for which they need assessment and treatment.” The juvenile court, in February 2019, sustained allegations that Mother and T.P.’s father had engaged in domestic violence and that they both had mental health issues that required assessment and treatment (§ 300, subd. (b) [failure to protect]), and that three older half siblings had been the subject of dependency proceedings and placed in out-of-home care (§ 300, subd. (j) [abuse of sibling]). The court adjudged T.P. a dependent minor, continued him in out-of-home care, and ordered reunification services for both parents. Mother was to have visits with T.P. supervised by the Agency. Mother engaged in services and made progress in her case plan. 2 The juvenile court continued her reunification services at the six-month review hearing in October 2019, and continued T.P. as a dependent minor. T.P. was placed with a different foster placement when he was around a year old. Mother engaged in her case plan and continued to make progress. The Agency, in February 2020, recommended that Mother be granted another