Opinion
H047060
09-30-2019
T.H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY, Respondent; MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 18JD000047, 18JD000048)
T.H. is the mother of R.W. and R.H., who are dependents of the Monterey County Juvenile Court. She has filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, asserting her children should not have been taken from her, and she was not provided adequate visitation with them. We construe Mother's petition as a challenge to the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services with the children and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Mother's writ petition.
Mother is self-represented. Her writ petition does not comply with the California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, because it does not cite any legal authority, nor does it cite to anything in the record. Given the nature of her challenges to the juvenile court's orders, we nonetheless address the merits of Mother's contentions. Mother's assertion that her children should not have been taken from her is an untimely challenge to the validity of the jurisdictional finding in this case. Welfare and Institutions Code section 395 states in part: "A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed from in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment." In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment. (In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233, 260.) A jurisdictional finding, while not appealable, may be reviewed in an appeal from the dispositional order. (In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339, 1342.)
I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
In April 2018, the Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition requesting that the juvenile court take jurisdiction of 7-year-old R.H. and 13-year-old R.W., due to Mother and Father's ongoing neglect of the children. Mother suffered from untreated mental health issues, and Father had problems with substance abuse that impacted their ability to safely parent the children. The home where the family lived was unsafe, because Mother had dug large holes in the bedroom and kitchen floors, and the backyard. Mother had been demonstrating bizarre behavior, including communicating with an imaginary person named "Scott," and expressing the belief that she was being followed by a black car with tinted windows. Mother reported she was feeling vibrations from the ground and needed to dig the holes to investigate. Mother drank alcohol daily, and did not see any problems with her behavior or the condition of the home.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The juvenile court conducted the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on May 1, 2018. The court sustained the petition, took jurisdiction of the children, removed the children from the parents' custody, and ordered reunification services. The children were placed with a maternal aunt and uncle in Truckee.
The maternal aunt and uncle's home in Truckee was the only appropriate relative placement at the time of the dependency.
The juvenile court ordered reunification services including a family mental health assessment, therapy, an alcohol and drug assessment, drug testing, and parenting classes. The parents were also required to obtain safe and stable housing.
The six-month review hearing was held on October 23, 2018. Neither of the parents was participating in their case plans; however, the juvenile court ordered that reunification services be continued. Mother had not maintained contact with the Department, and her living situation was unknown. Mother refused to participate in mental health services, substance abuse services, or parenting classes. Visitation was a challenge for Mother. She missed two scheduled visits, and one was cancelled because she was late.
The Department prepared a report for the 12-month permanency hearing recommending that reunification services be terminated for both parents. The report indicated that Mother had not accomplished anything in her case plan, and had not maintained contact with the Department. The children had not been in contact with Mother since December 2018, when R.W. had an argument with her on the phone about their living situation prior to the children's removal. After the phone call, both children decided not to participate in any further calls or visitation with Mother. The children reported that once contact with Mother stopped, they felt less stressed, and were more involved with family activities. Both of the children expressed their desire to be adopted by their aunt and uncle.
The 12-month permanency hearing was set for May 12, 2019. Both parents requested a contested hearing, and the matter was continued to June 3, 2019. At the contested hearing, Mother's attorney moved to withdraw as counsel because there had been a breakdown in her relationship with Mother. The juvenile court appointed new counsel for Mother and the matter was continued to June 11, 2019. The matter was continued a final time to June 25, 2019. At that hearing, Mother was not present. Counsel for Mother moved for a continuance, but the juvenile court denied the request. Counsel represented that she had received a message that Mother would not be attending the hearing. Counsel stated that Mother had not participated in the case plan because she objected to the basis for the dependency and the case plan. Counsel did not present any evidence or testimony on Mother's behalf.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services, finding that the Department had provided reasonable services to the parents and had followed the case plan. The juvenile court also found that the parents had not participated in the case plan, nor had they eliminated the circumstances that led to the dependency. Finally, the juvenile court found there was not a substantial probability that the children could be safely returned to their parents' custody. Visitation with Mother was terminated because the juvenile court found it would be detrimental to the children.
The juvenile court set the section 366.26 hearing for October 1, 2019. Mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ on September 11, 2019.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother does not assert any legal argument in her petition. Rather, she asserts her children should not have been taken from her, and she was not provided adequate visitation with them.
A. Standard of Review
On appeal, we consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's order. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688.) " 'In reviewing the reasonableness of the services provided, this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [Department]. We must indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the [juvenile court's findings]. If there is substantial evidence supporting the judgment, our duty ends and the judgment must not be disturbed.' " (In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 306.) "We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
B. Reunification Services
If a child is over the age of three on the date of his or her initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent, the juvenile court is required to order family reunification services "beginning with the dispositional hearing and ending 12 months after the date the child entered foster care . . . unless the child is returned" home. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) At the 12-month permanency hearing, the juvenile court must determine whether "the return of the child to his or her parent . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child," and whether the parent was offered or provided with reasonable services to aid the parent in overcoming the problems that led to the Department's removal and continued custody of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) The juvenile court may continue the matter to a date within 18 months from the child's removal only if it finds "a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time" or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
In order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the custody of his or her parent, the juvenile court must find: "(A) That the parent . . . has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child. [¶] (B) That the parent . . . has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home. [¶] (C) The parent . . . has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs." (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).)
C. Writ Petition
In her petition, Mother asserts her children should not have been taken from her, and she did not receive adequate visitation with them. However, other than Mother's perception of the events that have occurred during the pendency of her case, the petition does not set forth any evidence from the record to refute the Department's findings.
Nor does the petition cite any legal authority showing why the juvenile court may have erred in terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing. The evidence in the record shows the Department provided Mother with reasonable reunification services, including a referral for a family mental health assessment, a parent education group, and an alcohol and drug use assessment. Mother never followed through with these referrals, and did not complete the assessments. When Mother met with the social worker to discuss her plan, the meeting was terminated after 10 minutes because Mother argued incessantly about her belief that the removal of her children was "illegal." Because Mother would not maintain contact with the Department, her social worker did know if Mother had housing, or if she was homeless.
Mother admits throughout the petition that she refused to participate in the case plan, because she did not believe her children should have been removed from her custody. Mother believes she was being mistreated and was receiving "backlash" from her social worker because she would not commit to participating in her case plan. She states in the petition: "I decided that until I am given proof that they had a legitimate reason to remove my kids from my custody I was not going to be coerced into submitting to guilt and following their case plan."
Regarding visitation, the evidence shows that while the logistics required to facilitate visitation were challenging, the Department made reasonable efforts to promote visits between Mother and her children. These efforts included the Department's offer to transport the children by air from Truckee to Salinas two times per month to see Mother. Instead, the children opted to have their aunt and uncle drive them to Salinas to meet with Mother once a month. Mother arrived late for visits, and missed visits due to her claim that she lacked transportation. The Department offered Mother bus tickets so she could travel from Marina to Salinas for visits, but Mother never picked up the tickets. Mother participated in phone calls with the children, but those were stopped at the children's request after Mother argued with R.W. about the family's living situation prior to their removal from the home.
The evidence shows that there was not a substantial probability that the children could be safely returned to Mother's custody within the 18-month statutory period. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) In addition to evidence that the Department had provided reasonable reunification services, there was also evidence that Mother did not accept that there was any problem with her home, or that she was providing an unsafe environment for her children. During the pendency of the case, Mother did nothing to alleviate the conditions that caused the dependency, and refused to participate in any of the services offered by the Department.
We find there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's findings in this case. The juvenile court properly set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
III. DISPOSITION
Mother's petition for extraordinary writ is denied. Our decision is immediately final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
/s/_________
Greenwood, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Grover, J. /s/_________
Danner, J.