In re M.B.

In re M.B.





















Filed 9/2/10 In re M.B. CA3









NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED



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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.





IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Sacramento)








>

In re M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. O.B., Defendant and Appellant.	C064619 (Super. Ct. No. JD229125)

Appellant O.B.,
the mother of the minor M.B., appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights
(Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26; subsequent section references are
to this code). On appeal, she asserts
the juvenile court’s order entered at the dispositional
hearing was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The minor was born
in January 2009. In
February 2009, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human
Services filed a dependency petition
(§ 300, subds. (b), (j)) alleging abuse of the minor’s half siblings and
that appellant allowed the minor’s father to reside in her home despite his
propensity for violence. On April 1, 2009, the petition was
amended to include the father’s criminal record and history of substance
abuse.

The juvenile court
sustained the amended petition in April 2009.
Reunification services were ordered for the father, but denied for
appellant.

The father was
taken into custody on a parole violation in July 2009; he was moved to
Folsom Prison one month later. His
reunification services were terminated in November 2009.

Parental rights
were terminated in March 2010.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends
the juvenile court’s order at the disposition hearing removing the minor from
her custody was not supported by substantial
evidence. She made the same claim in
her appeal from the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, which we rejected in
an unpublished opinion.[1] (In re
Markayla B. (July 27, 2010, C061843) [nonpub. opn.] slip opn. at p. 2.)[2] We reject her claims in this case for the
reasons given in our prior opinion.

DISPOSITION

The order of the
juvenile court is affirmed.







NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.







We concur:







ROBIE , J.







CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.







Publication Courtesy of San
Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com