In re N.P. CA3

Filed 5/2/13 In re N.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH C072478 AND HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD231278, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD231277)

v.

L.D. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Mother, Heather B., appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son and daughter.1 Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. We find no error and affirm.

1 Son’s father joins in mother’s appeal.

1

BACKGROUND In 2010, mother gave birth to daughter who tested positive for amphetamines. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine, crank, uppers, diet pills and speed in the past. She also admitted using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. As part of an informal supervision agreement, mother agreed to participate in substance abuse treatment and parenting education. During the voluntary supervision period, mother tested positive for drugs and failed to attend drug treatment. In January 2011, the children were temporarily placed with their great uncle due to mother’s drug use. The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),2 alleging mother had a substance abuse problem dating back to at least 2006 from which she had not rehabilitated; mother continued to use drugs; mother used methamphetamine during the gestation of both children; and, despite her agreement to participate in informal supervision services, mother continued to use drugs and refused treatment. In April 2011, the court found the allegations true and declared the children dependents. Son, almost five, and daughter, almost nine months old, were placed together in a foster home. Reunification services and regular visitation were ordered for mother. No reunification services were offered to son’s father or daughter’s alleged father. The children were engaging, social and developing well. There were some concerns about son’s bedwetting and speech delays, but overall both children were developmentally on target. Son had had some problems with temper tantrums which resolved in the foster home.