(Super. Ct. Nos. JV09-441, JV09-442)
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A.D., the mother of five-year-old De.D. and three-year-old Da.D., appeals from orders of the Yolo County Juvenile Court denying her petitions for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388.)*fn1
On appeal, mother contends (1) denial of her modification motion seeking further reunification services was error, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the finding that the children were likely to be adopted. We shall affirm the orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2009, an off-duty Woodland Police detective observed Da.D. in the middle of a public street and De.D. seated on the curb. The detective saw an adult male grab, lift, shake, hit, and forcefully set down Da.D. before escorting the boys back to their house. The detective flagged down a police officer and the duo returned to the area. The adult male (later determined to be mother's boyfriend) was detained and arrested for felony child abuse. The children were located in the care of another adult male who had mental health issues and was unaware that he was supposed to be watching the children. Instead, the male believed an adult female, a known and avid heroin user who was not present, was supposed to be watching the children. Mother had not been seen since early that morning.
In September 2009, petitions were filed alleging that mother failed to protect the children due to her substance abuse, failure to complete prior voluntary case plans, and present and past involvement with domestic violence. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The petitions also alleged that the children had been left with inappropriate caretakers and mother's whereabouts was unknown. (§ 300, subd. (g).)*fn2
In September 2009, the juvenile court found that there was a prima facie case for detention and made the appropriate findings and orders.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
At a jurisdictional hearing in October 2009, mother submitted to the petitions' allegations as slightly modified. The juvenile court sustained the allegations as modified. At a dispositional hearing in November 2009, the court continued the children's out-of-home placement and ordered mother to participate fully in family reunification services.
An early review to check on mother's progress was scheduled for February 3, 2010. At the review, it was reported that mother was doing well in residential treatment but had suffered a relapse.
In reports for the May 2010 six-month review, the Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services (the Department) recommended that family reunification services cease because mother failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress on her ...