In re J.M.











Filed 5/3/10 In re
J.M. 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. G.M. et al., Defendants and Appellants.	C062158 (Super. Ct. No. JD226621)

The parents of the minor appeal from orders
of the juvenile court terminating their parental
rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§§ 366.26, 395.)[1] The mother contends reversal is required
because no guardian ad litem was appointed for her at the commencement of the
proceedings. The father joins the
mother's argument and also argues the juvenile court abused its
discretion in failing to find he had established an exception to the preference
for adoption as a permanent plan. We
affirm.

FACTS

The newborn child, J.M., was placed in
protective custody in November 2007, due to the mother's history of mental illness, which
previously resulted in the removal of her two other children, one of whom has
been freed for adoption, and the father's anger management issues. The mother's mental illness was being
controlled by medication and she was complying with her medication regimen;
however, she continued to display cognitive impairment.

In January 2008, the court denied services
to appellant due to her failure to make reasonable efforts to treat the
problems which led to the removal and termination of parental rights as to her
other children. The mother challenged the
denial of services in an appeal from the judgment of disposition but did not
assert that a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for her. The judgment was affirmed in an unpublished
opinion in In re J.M. (Nov. 25, 2008, C058009). The juvenile court ordered reunification
services for the father.

During the reunification period, both
parents regularly visited the child.
However, the quality of the visits was questionable due to the father's
controlling behavior which prevented normal parent-child interaction and his
occasional anger issues. The father
failed to reunify and his services were terminated in January 2009.

The assessment for the section 366.26
hearing stated that appellants continued to have regular visitation with the
child but both continued to need redirection to engage in age-appropriate
interaction with her. The father
continued to try to control the visits by making the child eat when she was not
hungry and holding her when she did not want to be held. The child was not excited to see appellants,
showed no distress upon leaving visits and occasionally wanted to leave visits
early. It did not appear that she knew
appellants were her parents. The child
was described as a normal healthy child with no behavioral or emotional
problems and was likely to be adopted by her current caretakers or another
family.

At the section 366.26 hearing, the mother
testified about the activities during visits and her belief that she had a
strong bond to the child. She further
testified that the child liked the visits and did not want to leave when they
were over. The court found the testimony
not credible and, relying on the visitation reports, concluded the relationship
between appellants and the child was that of a friendly visitor. Finding the child was likely to be adopted
and that no detriment to termination had been established, the court terminated
parental rights.

DISCUSSION

I.

The mother contends the court erred in
failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for her at the commencement of the
proceedings due to her mental illness and cognitive impairment.

â€