Opinion
D041977.
7-3-2003
MELISSA P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Melissa P. (the mother) seeks review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the court abused its discretion by not extending services beyond the 18-month hearing date and by not placing her son, Jacob B., with a relative.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2001, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of infant Jacob B., alleging he was at risk of serious harm because of his mothers abuse of alcohol and controlled substances, extensive history of drug use, failure to complete a drug rehabilitation program or reunify with Jacobs three siblings, and emotional disorder. The court detained Jacob out of the mothers home and ordered her to attend drug court.
On March 13, 2001, the mother submitted to the allegations of the petition and the court found them true. At the disposition hearing on March 27, the court removed custody from the mother and ordered her to comply with a reunification plan that included a substance abuse program, domestic violence and parenting classes, and individual counseling. Jacob was placed in the licensed foster home of the J.s. The social worker reported the maternal grandmother (grandmother) was willing to have Jacob placed with her, but was unable to assume custody because she lives with her sister.
For the September 25, 2001 six-month hearing, the social worker reported the mother was in an in-patient drug rehabilitation center and was complying with her case plan and with the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS). She was visiting with Jacob each week. The court continued services.
At the March 25, 2002 12-month hearing, the mother was living in a sober living facility and complying with her case plan. She had begun overnight visits with Jacob. The court continued services and gave the social worker discretion to begin a 60-day trial visit.
At an August 20, 2002 review hearing, the social worker stated Jacob had been placed with the mother since May 12. The mother continued to comply with her case plan, and her therapist reported she was making progress. The court ordered Jacob placed with the mother and continued services.
On January 31, 2003, the Agency petitioned under section 387, alleging the mother was no longer able to provide adequate care for Jacob because on January 23 she had tested positive for methamphetamine use, did not appear for a drug test on January 28, had stopped participating in her case plan, and was discharged from her sober living facility in November 2002 for being intoxicated. The grandmother told the social worker she wanted to be evaluated for placement of Jacob. The court detained Jacob out of the home and ordered evaluation of the grandmothers home.
The social worker reported for the section 387 hearing that Jacob had been detained in the home of his former caretakers, the J.s. She recommended he be placed with the J.s and no additional services be provided to the mother. At the February 24, 2003 jurisdictional hearing, the mother submitted a waiver of rights and the court found the allegations of the petition true.
The social worker reported the grandmother lived with her granddaughter and the granddaughters boyfriend. In July 2000 there had been a referral for domestic violence when the granddaughter slapped the father of their child while he was holding the child. The social worker also noted the grandmother has emphysema and had not volunteered to take Jacob earlier. She recommended Jacob not be placed with the grandmother.
At the April 10, 2003 dispositional hearing, the grandmother testified she had visited Jacob four or five times each week during the eight months he was placed with the mother. She said she did not visit him at the foster parents home because she did not have transportation. She thought if she did not visit Jacob the mother would have a greater incentive to try to reunify with him. She had not earlier requested placement for Jacob or for any of his siblings because at the time she was living with her sister and waiting for housing assistance. She said her emphysema would not limit her caring for Jacob, and her granddaughter and the father of their child now get along fine. It was stipulated that if the mother were called as a witness she would testify she had been in a residential drug rehabilitation program since April 2, 2003.
The court terminated reunification services, placed Jacob in the J.s home and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. The mother filed a writ petition to review the orders of the juvenile court pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision l and California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B. We issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties declined oral argument. We consider the merits of the petition.
DISCUSSION
I
The mother contends the court abused its discretion by not extending services beyond the 18-month hearing date. She argues the unique facts of her case warrant continued services.
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile courts findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 1031, 1036-1037, 177 Cal. Rptr. 783.) "We must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also . . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court. " (In re Luwannna S. (1973) 31 Cal. App. 3d 112, 114, 107 Cal. Rptr. 62, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 337, 340, 94 Cal. Rptr. 519.) In determining the sufficiency of reunification services, the role of the appellate court is to decide "whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile courts finding that reasonable services were provided or offered." (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the courts findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 412, 420, 159 Cal. Rptr. 460.)
The court may extend services beyond the 18-month hearing date only in an extraordinary case. (Andrea L. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1377.) Here, the court did not abuse its discretion by not extending services. Reunification services were provided to the mother for 15 months from February 20, 2001, through May 12, 2002. Services included SARMS, inpatient substance abuse treatment, drug court, individual therapy, domestic violence and parenting classes, visitation and a psychological examination. Subsequently, the mother received family maintenance services for the eight months Jacob was placed in her care. These services included the reunification services she was previously receiving in addition to in-home services. The combination of these services extended for more than 18 months. The mother had a 15-year history of drug use and had not been able to reunify with Jacobs siblings. She was provided with services designed to help her reunify with Jacob, but she was unable to maintain her sobriety and relapsed into methamphetamine use. On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion by not extending services beyond the 18-month hearing date.
II
The mother also contends the court abused its discretion by not placing Jacob with a relative. She argues the grandmothers home was not adequately evaluated for possible placement, concerns about placing Jacob with the grandmother did not rise to the level of a denial of placement, and the social worker did not adequately consider the factors listed in section 361.3.
Section 361.3 provides that when a child is removed from a parents custody, preferential consideration shall be given to a relatives request for placement. Jacob was declared a dependent child and placed in foster care when he was six weeks old. At that time the grandmother did not volunteer her home as a possible placement for him. He was placed in the J.s foster home and they have provided a home for him for a substantial portion of his life. The social worker reported that Jacob appears to have bonded with the J.s and they want to provide a permanent home for him. When Jacob was removed from the mothers care in January 2003, he was nearly two years old and the grandmother for the first time expressed an interest in and had the ability to provide placement. However, the past referral alleging domestic violence by her granddaughter, with whom the grandmother was living, hindered evaluation of the home. The social worker talked with the grandmother about making a different living arrangement, but she stated she did not know if she could afford alternative housing. Placement with the grandmother was adequately investigated and considered when she came forward to request placement. The court did not abuse its discretion by not placing Jacob with her.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J. and McINTYRE, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.