(Super. Ct. Nos. 08JVSQ2643702, 08JVSQ2643802, 08JVSQ2684802)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte ,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
G.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating her parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption as to minors A.M. (a female born in 2003), Cod.M. (a male born in 2005), and Cou.M. (a female born in 2007). (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 § 366.26.)
Mother contends the court erred by (1) summarily denying her section 388 modification petitions without a hearing, and (2) rejecting her claim that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied.
We disagree and shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, we affirmed the juvenile court's order denying reunification services to mother on grounds of mental disability. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(2).) (In re A.M. et al. (Dec. 1, 2010, C062237) [nonpub. opn.].) We judicially notice our prior opinion and adopt and incorporate by reference the facts from that opinion, which discuss events occurring between April 2006 and April 2009. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)
Following a contested dispositional hearing on April 30, 2009, the juvenile court denied services to mother*fn2 but provided them to father. (In re A.M. et al., supra, pp. 15-17.) A status review report filed October 19, 2009, by the Shasta County Department of Social Services (Department) recommended terminating father's services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The report concluded that, among other things, mother had made no progress.
An addendum report filed January 6, 2010, revealed that father had been sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to have no contact with A.M. and Cod.M. Mother had completed a program called Options for Recovery in October 2009, but her visits with the minors were still chaotic and had been reduced to one hour, twice per month.
At the six-month review hearing on January 15, 2010, the juvenile court terminated father's services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
The selection and implementation hearing report, filed April 23, 2010, recommended terminating mother's parental rights. The report stated that since February 22, 2010, the minors (at that time, ages six, four, and two) had been placed together in a prospective adoptive home. The minors were all adoptable, and the foster parents, who met all their needs and whom they called "Mom" and "Dad," wished to adopt them. The minors' overall behavior had improved now that mother's visits had diminished; the quality of her visits remained poor.
On May 12, 2010, mother filed section 388 petitions, seeking the return of the minors with termination of the dependency or under a family maintenance plan, or, alternatively, reinstatement of reunification services. Mother alleged she had "remained clean and sober for over 18 months. She has relocated to be away from the father[.] She has actively participated in over 21 additional Parents In Control classes with Barbara Sebastian. She continues to attend AA/NA meetings. She completed the Options group program[.]" Mother added: "Such an order will reunify these children with their mother and preserve the family unit. These children have a bond with their mother which should be preserved." The petitions did not attach documentation.
On May 14, 2010, the juvenile court set the section 388 petitions for hearing on June 11, 2010. On May 24, 2010, the Department ...