In re B.M. CA1/4

Filed 10/14/22 In re B.M. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, A165003 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JD-031579-01) K.M., Defendant and Appellant.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights and placing her now three-year-old daughter, B.M., for adoption. She contends the juvenile court erred in concluding there was no beneficial parental relationship justifying an exception to the statutory preference for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We find no prejudicial error and affirm the order. Background In September 2019, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the agency) filed a petition alleging that then 10-month-old B.M. was at

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

1

substantial risk of harm pursuant to section 300 subdivisions (b) and (j).2 The petition alleged that the child was born with a cleft lip and palate and that, as a result of mother’s failure to provide necessary medical care, the child was severely malnourished; the family home was infested with fleas; and mother is involved in a relationship characterized by domestic violence. The petition also alleged that mother’s four older children are in a foster home “due to [her] extensive domestic violent relationships . . . , extensive history and use of methamphetamine and unsuitable living conditions.” 3 The child had been removed from mother’s care and placed in the same foster home. In October 2019, the court found the allegations of the petition true and B.M. was found to be a child described by section 300, subdivision (b), (g), and (j). B.M. was continued in her foster placement and reunification services were ordered for mother. Mother received 18 months of reunification services. The agency’s review hearing report indicated that mother is “consistently prepared when she shows up for visits and is engaged with [her daughter]” but also noted several late or missed visits. Mother’s communication with the agency and participation in services was also mixed. The agency reported that mother was not in communication with the agency from November 2020 to January 2021. She missed 14 drug tests from October to January but the results for the tests she completed were negative. She participated regularly in