Filed 6/25/21 In re J.M. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re J.M., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078384 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J519556AB) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ja.M., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed. Joanne D. Willis Newton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION J.M. and Ja.M. (the Children) were removed from their mother’s care due to repeated exposure to domestic violence, nearly four years ago when they were two years old and two months old, respectively. Now six and four years old, the children have been in a prospective adoptive home for nearly a year. Ja.M. (Mother) appeals from juvenile court orders which denied her petition for return of the Children, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 and terminated her parental rights. She argues the court abused its discretion by denying the petition and erred in determining the Children were adoptable. We conclude the court’s rulings were proper and within its discretion and we affirm the orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition In August 2017, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed dependency petitions for the Children following two domestic violence incidents. (§ 300, subd. (b).) During the first incident, the Children’s father, R.P. (Father),2 spat on Mother and struck her on the face with a broomstick, causing her injuries. Father was arrested but, after getting out of custody, he returned to the home days later and forced his way into Mother’s bedroom and threatened to kill her. He was arrested again. 1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Father and Mother’s estranged husband, J.G., are not parties to this appeal. We discuss them only as needed. 2 The Children were present both times. J.M. was two years old and Ja.M. two months old; we refer to them as the older and younger child, respectively. The Agency alleged Mother had demonstrated a failure to protect herself and the Children from physical and emotional harm. Despite the back-to-back incidents of domestic violence, Mother was initially ambivalent about getting a restraining order against Father, stating she “ ‘can’t make a promise’ that she will get one, and that she does not have time.” She later obtained a restraining order against Father. The Agency noted Mother had demonstrated “a chronic pattern …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals