In re Luis H.



Filed 3/9/11 In re Luis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Luis H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SONIA S., Defendant and Appellant.	F060612 (Super. Ct. No. JJV063532) OPINION

THE COURT^*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Charlotte Wittig, Commissioner.
Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Carol E. Helding, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

Sonia S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her son Luis H. (child).^[1] She contends the court erred by not finding termination would be detrimental to the child. In mother's view, their parent/child relationship so benefited the child as to outweigh the benefit of adoption. On review, we disagree and affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Shortly after his birth in the spring of 2008, the child was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis (CF), a progressive disease that affects both the digestive tract and the lungs. Caring for such a medically-fragile child is a full time, medical management job.
Although mother and the child's father received instruction through a CF clinic for approximately six months, neither was able to adequately manage the child's disease and follow the clinic's and its medical staff's instructions. Although the parents meant well and loved the child, the parents' neglect was endangering and shortening his life. As of December 2008, the child had been hospitalized repeatedly, his weight was below the third percentile, and he was diagnosed with failure to thrive. Consequently, respondent Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) initiated the underlying dependency proceedings.
In January 2009, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the child under section 300, subdivision (b) (neglect) and ordered him removed from parental custody. It ordered reunification services for the parents consisting of CPR and first aid training, a counseling assessment to determine if there were issues the parents needed to address and training regarding how to care for the child in light of his condition. It also granted liberal unsupervised visits for a minimum of twice a week.
Over the next year, the parents received all of the supportive services that were available without any demonstrable improvement in their ability to care for the child's health. As a result, in March 2010, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the case for a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child. It also reduced the parents' visits to one time a week and ordered the visits supervised by the agency or its designee.
In a July 2010 â€