Opinion
A155522
12-06-2018
C.H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL NORTE COUNTY, Respondent; DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. Nos. JVSQ 17-6084, JVSQ 17-6085, JVSQ 17-6086) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
C.H. (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 three children. Mother claims insufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding that she received reasonable reunification services. In this memorandum opinion, we deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In June 2017, the Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed section 300 juvenile dependency petitions concerning three of Mother's children, T.D.M. (then 11 years old), J.M. (then nine years old), and T.T.M. (then six years old). The petitions alleged Mother and the children's biological father and stepfather failed to protect them, failed to provide them adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, and failed to provide regular care due to substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The petitions also included allegations of sibling abuse based on domestic violence. (§ 300, subd. (j).)
All three children have the same biological father and the same stepfather.
On June 9, 2017, Mother and children's biological father were pulled over in their vehicle by California Highway Patrol (CHP) because the three children were not in seat belts and the car smelled "very strongly" of marijuana. The backseat had been removed and the children were sitting on the floorboards. The car was full of belongings and two dogs, and the children were dirty and appeared to be living in the car. The CHP contacted the Department and placed the children in protective custody. When interviewed, the children said their Mother was drinking "sippys" (little bottles of alcohol) and buying drugs. J.M. reported Mother "was drunk and she hit me" and said Mother "is always drunk." The children also disclosed the family was staying "in the wooded area behind Safeway" without access to utilities or proper sanitation facilities and that they had to go to the woods to use the bathroom.
At the jurisdiction hearing on July 3, 2017, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petition against Mother and the biological father true. At the dispositional hearing two months later, the juvenile court found T.D.M., J.M., and T.T.M. dependent children, adopted the case plan filed with the disposition report, and ordered reunification services for Mother and biological father. The case plan required Mother and biological father to follow the conditions of the visitation plan, comply with mental health treatment and counseling, participate in alcohol and drug testing, obtain a stable and suitable residence, and consistently, appropriately, and adequately parent their children during visits and phone calls and not discuss adult matters with them. Both parents were also ordered to refrain from alcohol and drug use and were given a minimum of five hours of visitation per week, supervised by the Department.
The court struck allegations against the stepfather, whom the court found lacked standing at the detention hearing.
At the February 2018 six-month review hearing, the Department recommended the children remain dependents of the court, remain in out-of-home care, and that reunification services be continued for the parents. All parties submitted on this recommendation. The court found, among other things, that reasonable services had been provided to the parents, return of the children to their parents would create a substantial risk of detriment, the children's out-of-home care was necessary and appropriate, and the parents had made insufficient progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement. A 12-month permanency hearing was set for August 27, 2018.
At the 12-month permanency hearing, the Department recommended that reunification services be terminated for both parents. After a contested hearing, the court terminated the parents' services and set a hearing under section 366.26 for January 7, 2019. The court again found reasonable services had been provided to the parents, return of the children to their parents would create a substantial risk of detriment, the children's out-of-home care was necessary and appropriate, and the parents had made insufficient progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating placement. The court also found (1) no proof Mother had complied with her case plan other than self-reporting, (2) Mother was not credible in her testimony, and (3) the quality of visitation with the children had been "dysfunctional at best."
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 only two pages of briefing. Mother points to evidence that she complied with some elements of her case plan, but she does not discuss other substantial evidence her progress was insufficient. Specifically, the record shows Mother missed more than half of her scheduled visits with her children, missed drug and alcohol tests, tested positive for alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine though her case plan goal was to be free of alcohol and substances, had an altercation with an older son at her home while "highly intoxicated" to which law enforcement responded, provided no proof she had completed mental health counseling, and continued to behave inappropriately with the children during visits by making promises about returning home and discussing their case with them.
In any event, Mother seeks relief only on the ground she was not provided sufficient reunification services. Specifically, the "Department failed to meaningfully help her in that the gas vouchers they gave her were insufficient in amount to cover travel expenses from Fort Bragg to Crescent City for consistent visitation with her children." The only record citation Mother provides regarding the failure to provide adequate gas cards is her own testimony at the hearing. The trial court found Mother not credible, and the record reflects that gas vouchers and paid hotel stays were provided to Mother to facilitate visits with the children. The social worker also testified that even though Mother moved to Mendocino knowing the case had been opened in Fort Bragg, the Department made arrangements for services to be provided in Mendocino. In sum, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that Mother received reasonable reunification services. (See Amanda H. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1345-1346.)
Indeed, the Department made extra payments to the hotel because Mother brought dogs into the room, broke a coffee pot, and had extra people in the hotel room overnight. The Department also had to pay for a reserved hotel room when Mother failed to call or show up for visits.
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/_________
Margulies, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Banke, J. /s/_________
Kelly, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------