Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Arthur A. Garcia, Commissioner, Superior Court County of Santa Barbara Super. Ct. Nos. J1175385, J1175386, J1175387, J1175388, J1175389.
Tina R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Stephen Shane Stark, County Counsel, Linda C. Jessup, Deputy, for Real Party in Interest.
PERREN, J.
Tina R. seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She asserts she is entitled to an additional two and one-half months of reunification services because she was incarcerated for that amount of time and was unable to comply with her case plan. We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tina R. (mother) is the mother of Ericka, age seven; Vanessa, age five; Priscilla, age four; Tina, age two; and Ricky, age one year. On October 17, 2006, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the five children. CWS alleged that the children were living with their parents in a filthy home, without water service, edible food or being bathed on a regular basis; were not attending school; and were not provided timely medical care. CWS also alleged mother has a criminal history that includes battery, possession of a controlled narcotic substance and hypodermic needles.
The children were removed from the home and placed in the care of relatives.
On November 13, 2006, CWS submitted a jurisdiction/disposition report to the court containing a case plan with the goal of returning the children to their parents by May 14, 2007. On November 20, 2006, the court declared the children to be dependents of the court and ordered that mother and father participate in family reunification services.
On March 5, 2007, mother was arrested for drug use and incarcerated. She contacted the social worker upon her release on March 15, 2007. At that time, mother said that she was free from drug use, pregnant with her sixth child, residing in a clean and sober facility, and had no source of income. She had applied for aid and planned to find employment and housing. Two weeks later, on April 3, 2007, mother again was arrested for drug use.
In a status review report dated May 7, 2007, the social worker stated that mother had not actively participated in her case plan, had been arrested for theft and being under the influence of a controlled substance, and was unable to provide the children with a stable and suitable residence. The social worker concluded that there was not a substantial probability that the mother would reunify with the children and recommended that reunification services be terminated.
On June 4, 2007, after a contested review hearing (§ 366.21), the juvenile court found that mother had not substantially complied with her case plan and returning the children to her would create a substantial risk or detriment to the physical and emotional well-being of the children. The court terminated family reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for September 10, 2007.
Mother filed a timely petition for extraordinary writ on July 13, 2007. In her petition, mother asserts that reunification services should have been extended an additional two and one-half months because she was incarcerated for that amount of time and was not able to comply with her case plan. She also asserts that presently she is in a "very good residential treatment program" and taking parenting classes and drug testing.
CWS filed an answer contending that the petition should be summarily dismissed because mother did not file a memorandum of points and authorities and substantial evidence in the record supports the juvenile court's decision.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
In reviewing an order withdrawing the provision of reunification services, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency and determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the court's order and we must allow all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) The substantial evidence standard of review does not permit the court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (See Rodney F. v. Karen M. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 233, 241.)
Termination of Reunification Services Is Supported by Substantial Evidence
We will address the petition on its merits despite the failure of petitioner to file points and authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a)(2).)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding terminating mother's family reunification services. Mother testified at the hearing that she loved her children and visited them frequently when she was not in custody. The court found that reunification services should be terminated nonetheless because mother was rearrested for drug use knowing she had only six months to comply with her case plan and had not otherwise made a reasonable attempt at compliance.
Mother offered no other evidence to support her contention that an additional two and one-half months of reunification services would enable her to provide a safe environment for her children. (§ 361.5 ; and see Daria D. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 606, 613 ["where parents fail to regularly participate in reunification services from the outset, . . . a very young child's need for permanency and stability cannot be postponed without significant detriment"].) The court did not err in terminating mother's reunification services.
Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3) states: "For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail, for a child in a sibling group whose members were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under the age of three years on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, court-ordered services to some or all of the sibling group may be limited to a period of six-months from the date the child entered foster care."
We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., YEGAN, J.