Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. No. JD110635-01, Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
Barbara C., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent court’s orders issued at an uncontested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) terminating her reunification services as to her son D. and setting a hearing to implement a permanent plan. (§ 366.26.) We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In June 2006, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over then five-year-old D. after sustaining allegations petitioner’s alcohol abuse placed him at risk of harm. Petitioner is an admitted binge drinker with a 30-plus-year history of abusing alcohol.
The juvenile court ordered D. removed from petitioner’s custody and ordered her to participate in child neglect and substance abuse counseling and submit to random alcohol testing. No services were ordered for D.’s alleged father, whose whereabouts were unknown. D. was placed in foster care.
Petitioner received a total of 18 months of services. During the first six months, she completed counseling for child neglect and regularly visited with D. She also enrolled in substance abuse counseling but tested positive for marijuana in October 2006. As a result, the social services department (department) filed a subsequent petition (§ 342), alleging petitioner’s marijuana use placed D. at risk of harm. The court sustained the petition. In November 2006, petitioner was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to 15 days in custody and five years probation.
Between the six and the 12 month review hearings, petitioner continued to abuse alcohol. Consequently, she was discharged from her substance abuse counseling program. However, she acknowledged her need for more intensive treatment and was referred for residential substance abuse treatment.
In its 12-month status review, the department informed the court D. was doing well in his foster care placement and his caretaker wanted to adopt him. However, at the same time, D. and petitioner regularly visited and the quality of visitation was good. At the 12-month review hearing in June 2007, the juvenile court ordered services to continue and set the 18-month review hearing for November 2007.
Despite the additional time to attain and sustain sobriety, petitioner’s abuse of alcohol continued. She completed the residential drug treatment program and enrolled in substance abuse after care counseling but only attended three of the fourteen sessions. In September 2007, she began missing visits with D. and failing to submit to alcohol testing. In October 2007, she tested positive for alcohol. In its 18-month status report dated October 30, 2007, the department recommended the court terminate petitioner’s services.
The 18-month review hearing was conducted on November 9, 2007. Petitioner appeared with counsel. Minor’s counsel informed the court that D. was very attached to petitioner and his foster mother and that the permanent plan would likely be guardianship. The court found petitioner made minimal progress and terminated her reunification services. The court also set a hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues she was not timely served a copy of the department’s status review report. Consequently, she was unaware that the department was recommending termination of her reunification services at the November 2007 hearing.
California Rules of Court, rule 5.720(b)(2) requires the department to provide a copy of its status report to the parent 10 days before the 18-month review hearing. At oral argument, petitioner presented the envelope in which she received her copy of the 18-month status report. The envelope was postmarked November 8, 2007. Real party in interest, appearing telephonically for oral argument, conceded the department’s error in failing to provide petitioner timely notice of its recommendation to terminate her services.
Notwithstanding defective notice, petitioner cannot prevail unless she can also show she was prejudiced by the department’s noncompliance. In dependency matters, we apply the “harmless error” test. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 59-60.) Under that test, petitioner would have to show that but for the department’s noncompliance she would have successfully challenged the department’s recommendation, resulting in continued services.
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.
Since the Legislature has placed a statutory 18-month limitation on the provision of reunification services, the juvenile court has little choice at that juncture but to terminate services and proceed to permanency planning unless a continuance of services would serve the child’s best interest. (§ 366.22; Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) In this case, neither the appellate record nor petitioner’s arguments before this court convince us that D.’s best interest would be served by a continuation of services. Consequently, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.