(Super. Ct. No. 05JVSQ2587801)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Rachel S., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at a permanent plan review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 §§ 366.3, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to order reunification services for her. We affirm.
In May 2005, the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) removed Joshua W., age 9, from appellant's custody due to physical and sexual abuse. Appellant failed to reunify and parental rights were terminated in December 2006. At that time the permanent plan was adoption. However as time went on, the minor displayed serious emotional and behavioral problems and, in 2009, was placed in a group home. The minor's problems stabilized briefly but became increasingly severe and the permanent plan was modified to long-term foster care in November 2010.
By May 2011, the minor, who remained in the group home, asked to have parental rights reinstated because he had contact with his father and could possibly reunify with him. The minor filed a petition for modification seeking reinstatement of the father's parental rights. The petition was granted in August 2011. Subsequently, appellant's parental rights were also reinstated.
A status report filed in November 2011 stated that appellant remained in custody for her physical abuse of the minor and the father was in custody for threatening to kill a nurse who declined to give him a narcotic injection. The minor, now 16 years old, remained in the group home and continued to have behavioral problems which remained serious.
Appellant sent a letter to the court which detailed the changes she had made in her life while incarcerated, her participation in multiple programs available to her in prison, and her desire to have visits with the minor. Appellant did not ask to renew efforts to reunify with the minor.
The agency's status report in February 2012 recommended terminating the father's reunification services because he remained in custody. The agency also recommended commencing therapeutic visits between appellant and the minor when she was released from state prison. The minor remained in the group home. At times his emotional and behavioral issues escalated to assaults on peers and staff.
No parents were present at the review hearing in February 2012. Appellant's counsel asked the court to grant the agency discretion to offer nontherapeutic visits. The court ordered therapeutic visits with discretion to the agency for nontherapeutic visits based on how visits went following appellant's release. There was no request for the court to consider reunification services for appellant.
Appellant contends on appeal the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to exercise its discretion to order ...