In re C.P.
Filed 4/25/06 In re C.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(El Dorado)
| In re C.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
| |
| EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA C. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
C050842
(Super. Ct. No. 20040032)
| |
Jessica C. and Brad P. (appellants), the mother and father of C. and Z. (the minors), each appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of appellants. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)[1] Jessica contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petition for modification (§ 388), and appellants claim the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding that it was likely the minors would be adopted. Disagreeing with each of these contentions, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2004, the El Dorado County Department of Human Services (DHS) filed an original juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of the minors. The petition alleged appellants had histories of substance abuse that rendered them incapable of providing adequate care for the minors. The juvenile court sustained the petition, adjudged the minors dependent children, and granted appellants reunification services.
The minors were placed with their paternal grandmother and her husband. Visits between appellants and the minors were scheduled on a weekly basis, with DHS supervision. However, appellants were not permitted to attend visits when they failed to drug test.
On May 4, 2005, the juvenile court terminated reunification services. Visitation for father was modified to once monthly; mother's visitation remained as previously ordered. Appellants were permitted telephone contact with the minors on a twice-weekly basis. Thereafter, DHS recommended adoption as the permanent plan for the minors.
According to the social worker's report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing, the minors were doing well in the home of the paternal grandparents, who wanted to adopt the minors. The minors were healthy and presented no behavior problems. The social worker believed both minors would benefit from the permanence and stability afforded by adoption.
On July 15, 2005, Jessica filed a petition for modification pursuant to section 388, seeking an additional period of reunification services. In that petition, Jessica alleged she had continued to receive various services, and maintained contact with the minors. Jessica also averred the minors were â€
