In re T.H
Filed 3/15/06 In re T.H. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re T. H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENEE C. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | G035939 (Super. Ct. No. DP009333) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Renee C.
Michael D. Randall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Steven H.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Aurelio Torre, Deputys County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minor.
Renee C. and Steven H. separately appeal from a judgment that terminated parental rights to their daughter, T. H., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The parents argue the juvenile court erred in refusing to apply the benefit exception in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). We disagree and affirm.
* * *
T. was taken into protective custody after she tested positive for amphetamine at birth, in October 2003. After Renee told a social worker she had used methamphetamine during her pregnancy, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition alleging her inability to care for the child due to substance abuse, and failure to protect by Steven. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed the child from parental custody, and ordered reunification services. T. was placed with Steven's parents, where Steven's grandmother provided daycare.
At the 18-month review in April 2005, SSA recommended termination of reunification services because neither parent had complied with the service plan. The trial judge agreed, ordered services terminated, and set a selection and implementation hearing.
The hearing was held in August 2005. SSA reported T. remained in foster care with the paternal grandparents, and â€
