(Super. Ct. No. JV08-579)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz ,j.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
T.S., mother of L.S., appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating mother's parental rights.*fn1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)*fn2 Mother contends the juvenile court committed reversible error in finding the statutory, beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply to these dependency proceedings. We shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Some of the factual discussion and analysis contained in this appeal is derived from our opinion in case No. C063495, of which we take judicial notice. (In re L.S. (Nov. 8, 2010, C063495) [nonpub. opn.]; Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a).)
In October 2008, mother went to the West Sacramento police station with her then-seven-year-old daughter, and asked them to take custody of the minor as they had nowhere to live. The Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services (the Department) took custody of the child. Two days later, the child was returned to mother when she told the court she found a transitional housing program in Roseville intended for families. (In re L.S., supra, C063495.)
In November 2008, the Department removed the seven-year-old child from mother's custody after mother failed to comply with the court's order to remain in the transitional housing program. Mother and the child were found in a motel in Sacramento with no plan for housing after three days. (In re L.S., supra, C063495.)
The court subsequently sustained the amended section 300 petition, ordered the child to remain in foster care, and ordered mother to participate in a reunification plan with services provided to mother and the child. (In re L.S., supra, C063495.)
Mother appealed from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders. In April 2010, this court issued its opinion, affirming those same orders. (See In re L.S. (Apr. 26, 2010, C061884) [nonpub. opn.].)
When mother's services began, she was living in a shelter for abused women in Yolo County. Over the next six months, mother lived in a total of five different shelters, having left each of the shelters for different reasons. (In re L.S., supra, C063495.) During that time, mother also failed to follow through with numerous referrals for services, failed to secure housing, and failed to find a job. She completed a parenting class, but showed no signs of benefitting from it, and she failed to complete any of the domestic violence counseling she was directed to complete. Mother rebuffed the Department's efforts to find her a support network, and argued she was too busy trying to find a place to live to participate in counseling. (Ibid.)
Mother also continued to show poor parenting skills with her then-eight-year-old child. She continued to discuss inappropriate, adult topics with the minor during visitation, where minor and mother interacted as friends or sisters--not as parent and child. During visits the minor took the parenting role, asking mother whether she had enough to eat or drink, was ...