In re G.A.
Filed 6/30/06 In re G.A. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| In re G.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JENNIFER T., Defendant and Appellant. |
C051812
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD221048, JD221049)
|
Appellant, the mother of G.A. and R.A. (the minors), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to find she had established an exception to adoption based on her beneficial relationship with the minors. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) We shall affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
In September 2004, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed dependency petitions concerning the minors--six-month-old G.A. and four-year-old R.A.--alleging that G.A. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The petition also alleged that appellant, who was 22 years old, admitted using methamphetamine since she was 16 and stated that, if tested, she would be positive for marijuana. The petitions alleged the minors' father also had a drug problem and was incarcerated on drug charges.
According to the detention report, appellant had been offered family maintenance services after G.A. was born but was not compliant. At the detention hearing, the minors were ordered removed from parental custody.
Appellant admitted she continued to use methamphetamine subsequent to the minors' detention. At the jurisdictional hearing, appellant and the minors' father submitted the issue of jurisdiction on the social worker's report, and appellant agreed to participate in a dependency drug court program.
In November 2004, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services for appellant and the minors' father. Appellant's case plan included inpatient substance abuse treatment and drug testing, as well as weekly visitation. Shortly after the hearing, the minors were placed with the maternal great aunt.
In the report for the six-month review hearing, the social worker recommended termination of reunification services. Although appellant visited regularly with the minors and appeared to be bonding with them, she had failed to complete numerous treatment programs, had not complied with drug court and had not submitted regularly to drug testing. On the date on which the review hearing was originally scheduled, appellant was terminated from another program because she tested positive for hydrocodone (Vicodin), her â€
