In re Jamie J.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
In re JAMIE J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C053095 |
YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LINDA J., Defendant and Appellant. | (Super. |
Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] Appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minor is adoptable. We shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2003 a dependency petition was filed concerning the five-year-old minor, which, as amended, alleged the minor's father had been arrested on a parole violation, appellant recently had completed a prison sentence, and both parents had a history of substance abuse. According to the detention report, the minor had been living with his father prior to being placed in protective custody.
The allegations in the petition were sustained as amended. Appellant commenced substance abuse treatment and, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the social worker to begin transitioning the minor into appellant's home. In November 2003 the minor was placed with appellant.
A supplemental petition was filed in May 2004 based on appellant's noncompliance with treatment and testing, and the minor was placed in foster care. In July 2004 the allegations in the supplemental petition were sustained, and appellant and the minor's father were ordered to comply with the reunification plan.
By January 2005 the minor's father had progressed sufficiently in his reunification plan such that the juvenile court ordered transitioning of the minor into the father's home. The minor was placed with the father in February 2005.
Meanwhile, appellant was not complying with her case plan, and in August 2005 her reunification services were terminated. The minor remained placed with his father with continued family maintenance services.
In November 2005 a subsequent petition was filed because the minor's father had resumed using methamphetamine. The minor again was placed in foster care. Neither appellant nor the minor's father appeared at the jurisdictional hearing. The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the subsequent petition and terminated reunification services. The matter was set for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the minor.
An adoption assessment prepared in April 2006 by the California Department of Social Services recommended a permanent plan of adoption for the minor. According to the assessment, the prospective adoptive parents had been the minor's foster parents since early November 2005 and were â€
