In re B.C. CA3

Filed 3/5/13 In re B.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C071627

v. (Super. Ct. No. JD230196)

C.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.H., mother of the minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services‟ (Department) petition for modification seeking placement of the minor in her prospective adoptive relative‟s home. She also contends the evidence does not support the juvenile court‟s finding the minor is generally adoptable. As to the first

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

1

contention, mother does not have standing to raise this contention on appeal. On the second contention, we conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile court‟s finding that the minor is generally adoptable. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the juvenile court. BACKGROUND On September 28, 2009, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the then five-year-old minor based on mother‟s failure to protect the minor due to her mental health issues. The minor was detained. The Department‟s subsequent investigation revealed the minor may have been subjected to past sexual abuse. The juvenile court sustained the petition and, at a March 12, 2010, dispositional hearing, adjudged the minor a dependent and ordered reunification services for mother. In June 2010, the minor was noted to be doing well in her foster home and making progress in treatment with her therapist. She was identifying emotions and expressing them, and opening up about past trauma and anxiety. The minor‟s foster family, however, was not willing to provide permanency for the minor if mother failed to reunify. After three months, the minor had to be moved to a higher level of care because of behavioral problems. The minor refused to follow house rules, had tantrums when she did not get her way, and displayed sexualized behavior during bath time. The minor was moved to a new foster home on September 9, 2010. In its 12- month review report, the Department reported the minor was adjusting to the structure and routine of her new foster home. In October 2010, the Department filed a petition for modification, requesting a referral under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) for a relative in Oregon who was willing to provide permanency. Mother failed to reunify and, on January 25, 2011, reunification services were terminated. In its May 2011 report prepared for the selection and implementation hearing, the Department noted the minor‟s behavior issues had subsided in her new