From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A.R. v. Superior Court

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Oct 29, 2018
A154959 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018)

Opinion

A154959

10-29-2018

A.R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL NORTE COUNTY, Respondent; DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ET AL., Real Parties 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ17-6067)

A.R. (mother) petitions this court for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order setting a selection-and-implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for her son, one-year-old N.R. Mother claims that insufficient evidence supports the court's finding that she received reasonable reunification services. In this abbreviated opinion, we deny the petition.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Because mother's petition raises no substantial issues of law or fact, we resolve this cause by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

N.R. first came to the attention of real party in interest Del Norte County Department of Health & Human Services (Department) in March 2017, when he was born prematurely and tested positive for THC and morphine. That May, mother brought him to the emergency room with a skull fracture, stating that she had fallen asleep and accidentally dropped him. She "admitted to using . . . [m]orphine the night of the injury" and to waiting until the next day to take the baby to the hospital because she was afraid the Department would get involved. At the time, N.R.'s father (father) was in jail due to domestic violence against mother.

The Department filed a petition seeking juvenile court jurisdiction over N.R. under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provision for support) based on his injury while in mother's care, mother's substance abuse and "unmet mental health needs," domestic violence between the parents, and father's incarceration. The juvenile court sustained allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), adjudged N.R. a dependent child, and ordered that the parents receive reunification services.

At the January 2018 six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found that mother had not been provided with reasonable reunification services. It was undisputed that she had "some underlying mental issue," such as a learning disability, and the court found that the case plan did not adequately address that issue. The court ordered that both parents receive additional services. Six months passed, and in July 2018, the court terminated both parents' services. The court also scheduled a selection-and-implementation hearing under section 366.26 for November 5, 2018.

Mother, who has been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings below and in this court, filed a writ petition that consists of the standard Judicial Council form and less than three pages of briefing. Mother points to evidence that she complied with parts of her case plan, and we agree that she made some progress. But she seeks relief only on the ground that the Department "failed to provide meaningful psychological help to her knowing that she has a learning disability." The record on this point reflects that the Department was never made aware of a specific diagnosis, but after the six-month review hearing, it attempted to have mother evaluated for a learning disability. Though it could not locate any appropriate providers in the community to evaluate her, the Department nevertheless took steps to accommodate her potential learning disability, including by verbally going over the case plan with her at length and explaining issues thoroughly to ensure she understood. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that mother received reasonable reunification services.

Mother also makes the cursory assertion that she did not receive reasonable services as an "incarcerated parent." She was arrested in April 2018 for domestic violence against father, but it appears from the record that she spent little if any time in jail.

Mother's petition for an extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. The decision is final in this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

/s/_________

Humes, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Banke, J. /s/_________
Kelly, J.

Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------


Summaries of

A.R. v. Superior Court

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Oct 29, 2018
A154959 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018)
Case details for

A.R. v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:A.R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL NORTE COUNTY, Respondent…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Oct 29, 2018

Citations

A154959 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018)

Citing Cases

Del Norte Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. P.B. (In re N.R.)

We relate only those facts relevant to the issue on appeal, some of which are recited in opinions in prior…

In re N.R.

BACKGROUND Some of the following discussion is drawn from our prior opinion denying mother's petition for…