In re I.H. CA5

Filed 8/3/23 In re I.H. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re I.H. III, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN F086054 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JJV065802B) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION I.H. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Glade F. Roper, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tulare Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant I.H., Jr. Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.J. Jennifer M. Flores, County Counsel, and Carol Helding, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Meehan, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

-ooOoo- Appellants S.J. (mother) and I.H., Jr. (father) are the parents of the one-year-old child, I.H. III (the child), who is the subject of this dependency case. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing that resulted in mother’s parental rights being terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. Father joins in mother’s arguments. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Initial Removal In October 2021, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral after mother and the child tested positive for methamphetamines at the time of the child’s birth. Mother’s two oldest children lived with their father, and another child was removed through dependency proceedings and adopted by a relative. Mother admitted to using methamphetamine a few days earlier, and she understood that she should not have been using while pregnant. The child was taken into protective custody and placed in a resource family home. Father expressed interest in taking custody of the child when a social worker made contact with him at his residence. Father did not live with mother, and he denied knowing she was using drugs while pregnant. The social worker’s discussion with father was cut short because father had to take his mother to the doctor. However, he did not follow up or respond to the agency’s attempts to verify his sobriety with drug testing. The agency filed a petition alleging the child was described by section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The petition alleged the child was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of mother’s substance abuse and father’s failure to protect the child. The petition further alleged that the child’s half sibling was