The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The father of the minor appeals juvenile court orders denying his petition for modification and terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 §§ 366.26, 388.) Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion because there was a change of circumstances and granting modification would have been in the minor's best interests.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We will affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
In April 2008, when the minor was five years old, law enforcement officers conducted a probation search of his parents' home. The home was unsanitary and unhealthy. Clutter blocked the entry to some rooms. Open beers and a bong were left within reach of the minor, and the home smelled of marijuana. A methamphetamine pipe and a marijuana pipe were also found in the room where the minor slept. Marijuana was grown in another bedroom.
Father admitted the drug paraphernalia was his and that he had a substance abuse problem. Both parents were arrested. The minor was detained and placed in a foster home. In May 2008, the minor was declared a dependent.
The parents were given reunification services for one year. During that time, father made minimal progress completing his case plan. He finished one parent support group class and a mental health screening, but he did not participate in counseling or attend the life skills course. He attended only one anger management session and only half of his alcohol and drug services classes.
Father continued to use alcohol and marijuana. He missed appointments, tested positive for drugs, showed up for visits apparently intoxicated, and did not participate in 12-step meetings. His visits and phone calls with the minor were inconsistent. The minor said he was afraid of his father and sometimes refused to speak with him on the phone.
At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court found the parents did not regularly contact or visit the minor, did not make significant progress in their reunification plans or in resolving the problems that led to the minor's removal, and did not show the ability to complete their reunification plans or to provide for the minor. Reunification services were terminated on May 27, 2009.
An adoption assessment was filed a few months later. The report noted the minor was now six years old, had been in his placement for approximately one year, and the caretakers were interested in adopting him. The minor was physically healthy, developmentally on target, and mentally and emotionally stable. He had an age appropriate understanding of adoption, identified himself as a member of his foster family and insisted on using their last name.
The adoption assessment said that after the father became angry with the minor during visits, the minor regressed with night terrors and bed wetting. It was reported that the minor had a conflicted relationship with his father. The minor said he smelled alcohol on his father's breath during visits and felt father was not being honest about his ...