Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ reviewSuper. Ct. No. JUV 509787. Nancy Williamsen, Commissioner.
Corina F., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter A. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In March 2007, the juvenile court ordered then two-month old A. removed from petitioner’s custody because of petitioner’s drug use and ordered petitioner to participate in a plan of reunification. Petitioner’s reunification plan required her to participate in individual counseling, complete programs in parenting and anger management, complete a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommended treatment, and submit to random drug testing. The juvenile court also ordered a reunification plan for A.’s father, Albert. A. was placed in foster care.
Albert is not seeking writ review.
Over the ensuing four months, petitioner made no effort to participate in her case plan. She did not enroll in any of the counseling or treatment programs and she was incarcerated in late June 2007 for forgery. Once incarcerated, the only services available to her prior to sentencing were Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings, which she attended and a 30-hour parenting class, which she completed. There was also a month-long drug counseling program offered for those housed in minimum security housing. Even though petitioner was not eligible for the program, she completed the required homework.
In September 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing on the issue of whether to continue reunification services. Petitioner testified and admitted getting a late start on her case plan because she was in denial about her drug addiction. However, she claimed she was no longer in denial and would comply with her case plan if given additional time.
Petitioner also testified that she was awaiting disposition on the forgery charges. After that, she had a warrant to satisfy in Santa Cruz for failing to finish paying restitution as a result of a 2003 conviction for grand theft.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found petitioner and Albert were offered reasonable services but failed to participate and make substantive progress in their court-ordered treatment programs. The court also found there was not a substantial probability A. could be returned to petitioner’s custody after an additional six months of services. Consequently the court terminated services for both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues she did everything possible to progress in her case plan, noting that she has been clean and sober for four months. She seeks continued services and adoptive placement of A. with A.’s maternal grandmother.
Generally, reunification services are limited to six months in cases such as this where the child was under the age of three years when removed from parental custody. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2).) The purpose of the six-month limitation on services is to provide the juvenile court greater flexibility in meeting the needs of young children where the “[parent has] made little or no progress in [his or her service plan] and the prognosis for overcoming the problems leading to the child’s dependency is bleak.” (Daria D. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 606, 611, 612.) Consequently, the juvenile court may schedule a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26 on the six-month review date if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in reunification services. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) However, even absent compliance, the court must continue services to the 12-month review if it finds a substantial probability that the child may be returned to parental custody within another six months. (Ibid.)
In order to find a substantial probability of return, the court must find the parent regularly visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the problem prompting removal of the child and, demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection and well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) We review the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.) Substantial evidence is “reasonable, credible evidence of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could make the findings challenged....” (In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401.)
In this case, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services. While out-of-custody, petitioner made no effort to reunify with A. The only efforts she made came as a result of her incarceration where her opportunities were limited to a 30-hour parenting class, NA meetings, and study materials on drug addiction. Petitioner had yet to demonstrate her ability to attain sobriety out of the confines of a penal institution and, under the circumstances, the juvenile court properly concluded she failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in her case plan.
Further, the juvenile court properly concluded there was not a substantial probability A. could be returned to petitioner’s custody if she were given additional time to complete her court-ordered services. Even assuming petitioner would actively participate in her case plan, the services ordered were not available to her while in custody, and the court could not know when she would be out of custody given her pending case in Santa Cruz. In light of the above, we find no error in the court’s order terminating petitioner’s reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
With regard to petitioner’s request that A’s maternal grandmother be allowed to adopt A., that issue is not ripe nor a matter for this court’s review. Rather, the decision whether to place a child for adoption is reserved for the juvenile court to be adjudicated at the section 366.26 hearing, which has yet to occur. Consequently, we will not address it.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.