Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ, Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.), Super. Ct. No. CK63190
Anastasia F., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
VOGEL, J.
Anastasia F., appearing in propria persona, petitions for extraordinary relief from a dependency court order terminating reunification services with regard to her son, Truth F. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition.
FACTS
At the time of Truth’s birth in April 2006, the hospital’s staff was concerned about Anastasia because she was homeless, receiving government funds (SSI) due to mental health issues, had declined counseling referrals, and was making “odd statements” and displaying inappropriate behavior. The Department of Children and Family Services investigated, then detained Truth. In May, the Department filed a petition alleging that Anastasia had a history of substance abuse and mental and emotional problems (including hospitalizations and a prior diagnosis of bipolar disorder), which rendered her incapable of providing Truth with regular care and supervision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) The court appointed Helen Yee to represent Anastasia, and found a prima facie case for Truth’s detention.
All section references are to the Welfare and institutions Code.
In June, Anastasia waived her rights, and pled no contest to the petition, which was then sustained as amended. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The court ordered reunification services and authorized monitored visits, stating that “before [Anastasia] can reunify with [Truth], [she] must demonstrate the ability to provide for the physical and emotional needs of the child, obtain appropriate housing and day care, and be in compliance with the case plan,” which included individual counseling, random drug testing, parent education, and participation in a mental health treatment program (by completing evaluations, taking medications as prescribed, and participating in regular psychotherapy).
In July, the court heard and denied Anastasia’s Marsden motion and received the report of a court-appointed psychiatrist, Suzanne M. Dupée, M.D. Dr. Dupée reported that Anastasia had been a fashion model but “had a significant decline in her functioning over the past 13 years,” and for the past five years had been homeless and living on the beach. Dr. Dupée diagnosed Anastasia with bipolar disorder, explaining that she “seems to be in a constant almost manic phase,” “presents with features of a severe personality disorder with narcissistic, antisocial and borderline traits,” “has no or very limited insight into her behavior and mental illness and does not want to take psychotropic medications.” Because treatment with mood stabilizing drugs would have to precede individual therapy, Anastasia’s prognosis was “poor.”
Anastasia (who admitted past heavy drug use) completed a parenting program, participated in some counseling, and visited Truth (but was observed to have limited ability comforting him). As of November 2006, Anastasia had yet to obtain stable housing, and she continued to display “extreme instability of mood and behavior.” Meanwhile, Truth had been placed “with a foster-adopt family, who love[d] and adore[d] him,” who could provide stability, and with whom he was “appropriately attached and bonded.” The Department recommended termination of services for Anastasia.
In December 2006, the court granted Anastasia’s renewed Marsden motion, and appointed a new attorney to represent her.
Through June 2007, Anastasia continued to visit Truth, but demonstrated only “somewhat appropriate” behavior with him and very unstable and confrontational behavior towards the monitors and other Department representatives, both in person and by phone. The Department continued to recommend termination of services. At a contested hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)) held on June 19, the court found Anastasia had only partially complied with her case plan, terminated her services, ordered permanent plan services for Truth and a progress report on the homestudy, and set a section 366.26 hearing for October 16, 2007.
DISCUSSION
In her pro se petition, Anastasia alleges that, at the contested hearing, her counsel was incompetent, ill-prepared, failed to act in her interests, and violated her right not to incriminate herself by telling the court that she failed to attend three individual therapy sessions. No memorandum is offered in support of her petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.454; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
After Anastasia filed her writ petition, her lawyer informed us by letter that he would not be submitting anything further on Anastasia’s behalf because he had been unable to find any “arguably meritorious issues.”
We have reviewed the transcript of the contested hearing in its entirely and are satisfied that Anastasia’s allegations have no merit. Anastasia testified on her own behalf, with her lawyer effectively objecting as necessary and eliciting the following positive information from her for the court’s consideration: she was seeing her psychiatrist and taking her medications as prescribed; she found the medications helpful; she consistently visited Truth twice each week; she loves Truth and Truth loves her and cries at the end of their visits; only one visit ended badly due to stress caused by her belief that it might have been her last visit; she completed a parenting class; she had been in individual counseling, but her counselor had recently left and had yet to be replaced; she did not test regularly for drug or participate in a drug program only because the social workers led her to believe testing and a program were not required because drug use was not her main issue; she had moved into a home where she could live with Truth; her $500 monthly rent was affordable because she received monthly SSI of $900; she had made her “best efforts” to comply with the court’s orders, and would continue to cooperate to have Truth returned to her. Anastasia’s lawyer’s closing argument was complete, positive, and effective.
The problem is that, on cross-examination, Anastasia admitted that she had been verbally abusive to the monitors and social workers, and demonstrated very little insight into her mental health issues and medications (describing her “mood disorder” as “just a case of rattled nerves” and her medications as “stabilizers”), and lack of self-control by speaking out with argumentative comments throughout the proceedings, and she admitted the absence of any support systems essential to caring for Truth. In addition, the social worker testified that Anastasia’s parenting skills had not improved despite the classes, that she was unable to control her anger, that she demonstrated “extreme instability of mood and behavior” throughout the period of reunification, and that she only partially complied with her case plan.
In short, Anastasia’s counsel performed competently and the trial court’s findings of “substantial risk of detriment” and order for termination of services are fully supported by the evidence in this case. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2), 366.21, subd. (f); In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 420; In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1711; In re Andrea G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 547.)
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P.J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.