Opinion
2d Juv. No. B300476
02-14-2020
C.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
C.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, and Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 19JV00194)
(Santa Barbara County)
C.M. (Mother) petitions for extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452, 8.456), challenging dispositional orders of the juvenile court. The court ordered family reunification services for Mother with her child, R.W., be bypassed, following the filing of a juvenile dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b)(1) & (j)) by the Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS). We conclude, among other things, the evidence in the record supports the court's orders bypassing family reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11)), and setting a section 366.26 hearing. We affirm the orders and deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.
FACTS
In May 2019, Mother gave birth to R.W. Mother and the baby tested positive for "amphetamines and cannabinoids." Baby was placed in neonatal care.
CWS filed a juvenile dependency petition. (§ 300, subds. (b)(1) & (j).) It said Mother was unable to care for R.W. because of "her untreated substance abuse," a "history of untreated mental health issues," a "history of suicide attempts," and because she has been "hospitalized ten times due to mental illness." CWS said Mother has a "criminal history," which places the child "at substantial risk of physical harm."
CWS noted that, in 2012 and 2016, it removed Mother's two older children. In 2016, Mother's parental rights to one of her children was terminated and the child was adopted.
R.W. was removed from Mother's custody. In a detention report, CWS said Mother had previously been provided with "substance abuse referrals, parenting education and counseling services, which have not been successful as [Mother] continues to abuse substances." At the detention hearing on May 15, 2019, the court ruled that continuance of the child in Mother's home would be "contrary to the child's welfare."
On June 21, 2019, the juvenile court sustained the petition and scheduled a dispositional hearing.
In a July 25, 2019, report, CWS recommended that R.W. be declared a dependent of the juvenile court and remain in "out of home care." It noted that Mother recently tested positive for drug use and missed another drug testing appointment. She also missed appointments at her "Recovery Program." CWS recommended that Mother be bypassed for family reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11).)
Mother testified at the contested dispositional hearing. She claimed, among other things, that she participated in drug rehabilitation efforts and she should receive family reunification services. The juvenile court followed the CWS recommendation that Mother be bypassed from receiving family reunification services. It found there was not a significant bond between Mother and R.W. because he (R.W.) had been "removed at birth." The court said, "It's simply not been demonstrated that it's in this child's best interest that services be provided to [Mother]." "A selection and implementation hearing will be scheduled."
DISCUSSION
Substantial Evidence
Mother contends there is no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings. We disagree.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court's findings. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733.) We do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses. (Ibid.) Those are matters exclusively resolved by the juvenile court. (Ibid.)
Mother cites to portions of the record and claims they support her position. But the issue is not whether some evidence support's Mother's claims; the issue is whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings.
The juvenile court ruled that continuance of R.W. in Mother's home would be "contrary to the child's welfare." R.W. was removed because he tested positive for amphetamines and cannabinoids at birth. The court could reasonably find taking jurisdiction over this child was necessary given Mother's long history of substance abuse. That history also involved the safety of Mother's two older children. CWS had to initiate prior juvenile court proceedings involving Mother and her two older children. The court could reasonably find Mother's drug use during her pregnancy of R.W. was a direct threat to the child's safety. CWS said Mother "acknowledged using [drugs] the night before her son's birth." It also noted that Mother had a "history of untreated mental health issues."
Bypassing Family Reunification Services
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to order CWS to provide family reunification services.
CWS contends the record supports the juvenile court's decision to bypass reunification services and set the case for a section 366.26 hearing. We agree.
After CWS removes a child from a parent following the filing of a juvenile dependency petition, the parent is normally entitled to receive family reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) But there are exceptions. Family reunification services may be denied for a parent of a dependent child where the court has: 1) previously ordered termination of reunification services for that parent for another sibling, or 2) permanently severed parental rights for that parent for another sibling, and where 3) that parent "has not subsequently made a 'reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to [those situations].' " (D.T. v. Superior Court (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1033; § 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11); In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 210.) "The legislative intent is to promote the interests of children . . . by not ordering services when parents have demonstrated in prior proceedings that they would be fruitless." (In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 108.)
But a parent subject to the bypass provisions may obtain reunification services by demonstrating that "reunification is in the child's best interest by offering evidence of, among other things, his or her current ability to parent." (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1116.) "To determine whether reunification is in the child's best interest, the court considers the parent's current efforts, fitness, and history; the seriousness of the problem that led to the dependency; the strength of the parent-child and caretaker-child bonds; and the child's need for stability and continuity." (Ibid.) "A best interest finding requires a likelihood reunification services will succeed . . . ." (Ibid.) The parent has the burden to prove reunification is in the best interest of the child. (D.T. v. Superior Court, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1032-1033, fn. 10.)
"An appellate court reviews a court's findings under section 361.5 for substantial evidence." (In re G.L. (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164.)
Here the juvenile court could reasonably find Mother fell within the statutory bypass provisions. In 2012, CWS removed another child, K.R., from Mother. Mother drove that four-year-old child in a car while she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, placing the child "at substantial risk of serious physical harm." CWS noted that Mother "failed reunification" with that child. In 2016, CWS removed another child, E.M., from Mother because of Mother's drug abuse. Mother again "failed reunification" and that child was adopted.
In the current case, the juvenile court found that the bypass provisions applied, and that it was not in R.W.'s best interest that reunification services be provided to Mother. Mother challenges that ruling. But this finding is supported by the evidence in the record.
The juvenile court could reasonably find Mother did not make a sufficient showing of "a likelihood reunification services will succeed." (In re Allison J., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116.) It could properly consider the drug abuse problem that led to the removal of Mother's two older children and to R.W.'s removal. (Ibid.) In its disposition report, CWS said Mother had not made a showing of progress relating to her drug abuse problem following CWS's removal of her other two children in 2012 and 2016. It said, "Allegations of neglect related to [Mother's] substance abuse have increased in intensity as drug use has escalated to the point of her child, [R.W.], being born positive for drugs." (Italics added.) CWS noted that Mother "acknowledged using [drugs] the night before her son's birth." CWS concluded it was not in the best interest of R.W. for Mother to have reunification services.
At the contested hearing, Mother testified that she is "a different person" since "late 2017." "I've learned to love myself, and, therefore, I can love my children properly and care for them." Her "schizoaffective" and "schizophrenic" symptoms have been under control since May 2019. She claimed she had participated in drug rehabilitation. Mother testified, "I'm doing a drug program, which I participate four days a week for an hour and a half."
But CWS noted that Mother "has only recently, minimally engaged in substance abuse treatment, which was the primary reason for removal for [R.W.], as well as her older children." (Italics added.) Mother admitted at the hearing that she was "not formally engaged in a substance abuse program from September 2018 to March 2019." She was at the "Path" program between June and December 2018. But during that period she tested "positive" for drugs on three occasions and was "sanctioned" because of that. Her "case" at the "Be Well" program was closed because she had missed appointments.
The juvenile court could also reasonably infer Mother's prior history of taking advantage of and benefiting from rehabilitation programs was unfavorable. CWS said Mother in the past had been provided with "substance abuse referrals," "parenting education" classes, and "counseling services." But they "have not been successful [because Mother] continues to abuse substances."
In its report to the court, CWS said, "[Mother] has a chronic history of substance use, which she has not sufficiently addressed and she has not demonstrated sobriety over a substantial period of time." (Italics added.) At the August 8, 2019, contested hearing, Mother admitted that she "tested positive for methamphetamine" as recently as July 5, 2019. She has not shown that the juvenile court erred.
We have reviewed Mother's remaining contentions and we conclude she has not shown grounds for reversal.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed. The petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J. We concur:
PERREN, J.
TANGEMAN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
C.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, and Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.