From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carla M. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. B204011 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)

Opinion


CARLA M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. B204011 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division March 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Writ petition to review order setting hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Terry Truong, Juvenile Court Referee, Super. Ct. No. CK65750

Eva E. Chick for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PERLUSS, P. J.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Senior Associate County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

Carla M. seeks writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26 subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order, made at the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her 15-month-old son E. M. We deny the petition, finding no merit to Carla M.’s contention there was insufficient evidence to support a finding the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) had provided reasonable reunification services. We do not consider Carla M.’s additional claim that the juvenile court abused its direction by denying her request for placement of E. M. in the home of a maternal great aunt (§ 361.3) because Carla M. lacks standing to seek appellate review of the order denying relative placement.

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

One day after E. M. was born in November 2006, a social worker responded to a report from the hospital advising of caretaker absence or incapacity. At the hospital Carla M. told the social worker she was incarcerated on a charge of murder. Carla M. refused to provide any additional information, explaining her attorney had advised her not to discuss the case with anybody. Carla M. would not disclose any information about E. M.’s father, stating she did not want E. M. to have a father.

On November 16, 2006 the Department filed a section 300 petition to declare E. M. a dependent child of the juvenile court. The petition alleged Carla M. was incarcerated on murder charges and had failed to make an appropriate plan for E. M.’s care and supervision, endangering his physical and emotional health, safety and well-being. The court ordered E. M. detained in the hospital or in shelter care and ordered the Department to obtain more information regarding Carla M.’s criminal case. At the arraignment hearing held the following day, the court ordered the Department to evaluate E. M.’ s medical condition to see if visits with Carla M. were appropriate.

In its report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Department indicated E. M. had been placed with foster parents on November 17, 2006, but was rehospitalized for kidney problems 10 days later. He was released to the foster parents once again on December 10, 2006. Carla M. refused to discuss her criminal case, but told the social worker she had been incarcerated since February 2006 and had a hearing scheduled in January 2007. Carla M. had not told anyone that she was pregnant following her arrest and had not received any prenatal care. Carla M. admitted she had used illegal drugs, including crystal methamphetamine, but stated she had not used drugs or alcohol for the past year. The prosecutor assigned to Carla M.’s criminal case told the social worker Carla M. was charged with first degree murder, drugs were involved in the murder and Carla M. faced a prison term of 25 years to life. A maternal great aunt, Maria M., had expressed interest in having E. M. placed in her home, but lacked sufficient space for a child in the small room she rented.

On December 14, 2006 the Department filed an amended section 300 petition, adding the allegation Carla M. is a periodic user of drugs and alcohol. The juvenile court set the jurisdiction hearing for January 18, 2007.

In a supplemental report for the jurisdiction hearing, the Department stated Carla M. and a codefendant were charged in a criminal information with first degree murder; the codefendant was also charged with poisoning the victim. Details of the crime were contained in a police report. Carla M.’s codefendant, Maria G., believed the victim had consulted with a witch doctor and placed a spell on Maria G. Maria G., Carla M. and a third woman lured the victim to a beach where the four drank alcohol and smoked crystal methamphetamine. Maria G. poured paint thinner and acetone into the victim’s beer. When the victim got sick, the four left the beach in a car. As they drove, Maria G. struck the victim with a bottle while Carla M. controlled the third woman, who was driving the car. When they reached a secluded location, Carla M. and Maria G. removed the unconscious victim from the car, retrieved two large pieces of concrete from a nearby property, dropped them on the victim’s head several times and fled on foot.

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on January 18, 2007 Carla M. waived her rights to confront and cross-examine the social worker who prepared the Department’s report and to present evidence and submitted on the basis of the reports. (See In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368.) The court sustained the petition; ordered the Department to provide family reunification services to Carla M.; and ordered Carla M. to participate in individual counseling, parenting education, drug counseling with random testing and weekly counseling to address lifestyle choices, drug abuse, neglect and criminal history. The court ordered monitored visitation for Carla M., “if [E. M.] is medically O.K. and someone can facilitate the visits.” The court further ordered Maria M. to receive medical training for E. M., ordered monitored visits by Maria M. and gave the Department discretion to liberalize the visits and to place E. M. with Maria M. The matter was continued to May 1, 2007 for a progress report hearing and to July 19, 2007 for the six-month review hearing.

In its report for the May 1, 2007 progress report hearing, the Department indicated Carla M. remained incarcerated at a detention facility in Lynwood. No visits had taken place due to Carla M.’s incarceration, but the social worker had mailed pictures of E. M. to her. Carla M. had told the social worker she was participating in weekly drug and parenting programs at the detention facility, but had not provided proof of participation in the programs. Maria M. had moved into an apartment with a male companion, Mario M. Mario M. had submitted to a live scan that showed several arrests, convictions for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license, as well as a deportation order. Mario M. had promised the social worker he would provide verification of participation in programs to address his alcohol issues, but failed to provide any documents.

At the progress hearing on May 1, 2007 Carla M. submitted documents reflecting her participation in various programs at her detention facility. The juvenile court gave the Department discretion to place E. M. with Maria M. and continued the case to July 19, 2007 for the six-month review hearing.

The Department’s report for the six-month review hearing indicated Carla M. remained incarcerated and had not yet had her criminal trial. There had been no visits due to Carla M.’s incarceration, but the social worker had again sent her pictures of E. M. E. M. was thriving in a supportive and nurturing environment with his foster parents, who wished to adopt him. Maria M. was visiting regularly with E. M. after an initial period of inconsistency, and the visits were going well. Maria M. told the social worker Mario M. was no longer living with her and stated she would like to have E. M. placed with her. The Department expressed reluctance to place E. M. with Maria M., noting Maria M. had been inconsistent in her desire to care for him permanently and had previously stated she could not afford to care for him. The Department also stressed E. M.’s need for stability and proper attachment to a permanent caregiver. The Department recommended termination of reunification services for Carla M. On July 19, 2007 the six-month hearing was continued to September 4, 2007 for a contest with regard to extension of reunification services for Carla M. and placement of E. M. with Maria M.

After several continuances the contested hearing commenced November 9, 2007. In supplemental reports for the hearing submitted September 4, 2007 and November 9, 2007, the Department indicated the social worker took E. M. for an initial visit with Carla M. on August 31, 2007. Carla M. became emotional while attempting to communicate with E. M. through a glass partition, and E. M. looked away from Carla M. when she talked to him through the glass. After the visit the social worker asked the foster mother whether she would be able to facilitate further visits; the foster mother stated she could not. The social worker reported she would inquire whether the foster family agency might be able to facilitate visits. The social worker transported E. M. for further visits with Carla M. on September 25, 2007 and October 29, 2007. During the visits interaction between E. M. and Carla M. was made difficult by the circumstances of Carla M.’s incarceration. The Department reported the trial in Carla M.’s criminal case was scheduled for January 11, 2008. Maria M. remained interested in having E. M. placed with her but was uncertain about adoption. Maria M. told the social worker she realized E. M. was well bonded with his foster parents and she knew they loved him.

At the contested hearing the foster mother testified she had cared for E. M. for 11 months. For the last six to nine months Maria M. had visited E. M. every Friday and adequately cared for his needs during visits. E. M. was happy to see Maria M. and was affectionate with her. The foster mother and Maria M. had become good friends.

The Department’s social worker, Veronica Garcia, testified she did not initially arrange for visits by E. M. with Carla M. at the detention facility because it was not clear E. M.’s fragile health allowed him to travel to visits and the court’s visitation order was subject to his medical fitness. Once the foster mother told Garcia E. M. was able to visit, she arranged three monthly visits. Visits did not take place more often because the foster mother was unable to transport E. M. and Garcia was personally unable to facilitate more frequent visits. After visiting with E. M., Carla M. asked Garcia whether E. M. would visit again, but did not ask when another visit would take place or ask for more visits. Garcia testified she had reservations about placement of E. M. in the home of Maria M. because Garcia believed Mario M. was still around, Maria M. had once stated she could not care for E. M. because Mario M. was not contributing to her rent payments and Maria M. generally vacillated with regard to her desire to have E. M. placed with her.

Maria M. testified she had been visiting E. M. for six to nine months, she took care of his needs during visits and E. M. was always happy to see her. Mario M. had moved out of her house several months ago, but continued to deposit money into her bank account to help her pay the rent. Maria M. had concerns about adopting E. M. because Carla M. had threatened to take him away when she was released from prison, but she still wanted E. M. placed with her and intended to seek protection from Carla M. with a restraining order. Maria M. believed E. M. was well cared for by his foster parents.

At the conclusion of testimony the court ordered the parties to submit written closing arguments and continued the matter to November 20, 2007 for its decision. In its closing argument the Department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing; it also recommended the court deny

Carla M.’s request for placement of E. M. with Maria M. The Department argued the evidence showed Carla M. had failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in her case plan and there was not a substantial probability E. M., who was under the age of three when initially removed from Carla M.’s custody, could be returned to her by the date for the 12-month permanency hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e), 3rd par.) The Department further argued it was not in E. M.’s best interest to be placed with Maria M. in view of her continuing relationship with Mario M., who had a criminal history; her inability to afford the expenses of care; her vacillation in seeking placement; and her lack of experience in caring for a young child. E. M.’s counsel supported the Department’s recommendation and in his closing brief made the same arguments as the Department.

Carla M. contended reunification services should be extended to the 12-month date because the Department had not provided her with reasonable reunification services. Specifically, Carla M. argued reunification services were deficient because she was not allowed enough visits with E. M. Carla M. further claimed the juvenile court was required to grant her request for placement of E. M. with Maria M. because the evidence showed Maria M. had the commitment and ability to provide a safe, secure and stable environment for the child.

On November 20, 2007 the juvenile court ordered termination of reunification services. The court found the Department had provided reasonable reunification services and further found, although Carla M. had attempted to comply with the requirements of her case plan, her incarceration prevented her from completing those requirements and she had made insufficient progress in resolving the problems that led to the removal of E. M. from her custody. The court denied Carla M.’s request for placement of E. M. with Maria M., finding that the change of placement would not be in E. M.’s best interests.

DISCUSSION

1. Adequacy of Reunification Services

We review the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable reunification services were offered under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329.) We recognize in most cases more services might have been provided and the services that were provided are often imperfect. The standard, however, is whether the services provided were reasonable under the circumstances. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 547.)

When we review the juvenile court’s findings under the substantial evidence standard, we inquire only whether there is any evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1212.)

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding the services offered to Carla M. were reasonable under the circumstances of her case. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416-417; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424-425.) Carla M. complains the social worker facilitated only three visits by E. M. at her place of incarceration. The record, however, establishes the limited visitation was not unreasonable. At the jurisdiction-disposition hearing the court ordered monitored visitation for Carla M. subject to E. M.’s medical fitness and the availability of someone to facilitate the visits. Visits did not take place initially due to E. M.’s fragile medical condition, as well as the unavailability of someone to transport him to the detention facility. After determining E. M. was medically fit to visit, the social worker personally transported him to the detention facility in August, September and October 2007. Additional visits did not take place because the foster mother was unable to transport E. M. to the detention facility and the social worker’s workload did not permit her to facilitate more frequent visits. The record further shows that the visitation at the detention facility, through a glass partition and with an infant, was not of great value. Under these circumstances the absence of additional visits did not render the Department’s reunification services unreasonable.

Significantly, Carla M. did not request visitation or complain of the lack of visits from the date of the jurisdiction hearing on January 18, 2007 until her first visit on August 31, 2007.

2. Request for Relative Placement

Carla M. lacks standing to seek appellate review of the juvenile court’s order denying relative placement because her interests are not prejudiced by the order.

Carla M.’s interest in the dependency proceeding is to reunify with E. M. The juvenile court’s decision not to place E. M. with Maria M., made contemporaneously with its order terminating reunification services for Carla M., does not adversely affect that interest. (Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035.) Carla M. does not show, or even allege, more than a nominal interest in the consequence of the juvenile court’s denial of her relative placement request. Any prejudicial effect on Carla M.’s interest is thus merely speculative. (See In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1000.) “To be aggrieved, a party must have a legally cognizable immediate and substantial interest which is injuriously affected by the court’s decision. A nominal interest or remote consequence of the ruling does not satisfy this requirement.” (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734.) The only interest affected by the order Carla M. attempts to challenge at this point in the proceedings is Maria M.’s interest in having

E. M. placed with her. (Cesar V., at pp. 1034-1035; In re Gary P. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 875, 876-877; In re Jasmine J. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1802, 1806-1807.) “An appellant cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal.” (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) Because Carla M. is not aggrieved by the order she challenges, this court is without jurisdiction to consider her claim.

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied on the merits.

We concur: WOODS, J., ZELON, J.


Summaries of

Carla M. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. B204011 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Carla M. v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:CARLA M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2008

Citations

No. B204011 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)