Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kenneth C. Twisselman, II, Judge, Super. Ct. No. JD113207
Corine R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Harris, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
OPINION
Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter T. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Dependency proceedings were initiated in January 2007 when then newborn T. was removed from petitioner, an inmate serving a sentence for drug-related charges. T.’s then alleged father, Joseph, was also incarcerated.
Joseph also filed a writ petition in case No. F053513.
This was not petitioner’s first exposure to child protective services. She has five other children who were removed from her custody and permanently placed elsewhere. Three of them were removed in March 1998 after the youngest of them, a baby, tested positive for opiates. Petitioner was provided reunification services but failed to reunify. In 2000, one of the children was adopted, and the other two were appointed a legal guardian in 2004. In March 1999, while receiving reunification services for two of the children, petitioner gave birth to her fourth child who was also removed and adjudged a dependent of the court. Petitioner received reunification services for this child as well but failed to reunify. In 2000, the child was adopted. In 2005, petitioner’s fifth child was adjudged a dependent of the court but this time petitioner was not offered reunification services. Instead, the child was placed in the sole custody of her father.
The social services department (department) filed a dependency petition on T.’s behalf alleging petitioner’s extensive drug use resulted in the loss of custody and permanent placement of T.’s five half-siblings and prevented petitioner from properly caring for T. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g) & (j).) At the detention hearing on the petition, the court declared Joseph to be T.’s biological father and ordered T. detained. The court also ordered twice weekly one-hour visitation for petitioner and Joseph when they were not incarcerated and once monthly visitation for one hour when they were. T. was placed with her maternal aunt and uncle.
In March, the juvenile court conducted the jurisdictional hearing. Petitioner waived her trial rights and the court sustained the dependency petition without modification. The court also took judicial notice of the dependency cases pertaining to T.’s five half-siblings and set the dispositional hearing for May.
The dispositional hearing was continued and conducted in August 2007 as a contested hearing. Meanwhile, in March 2007, petitioner, then serving a three-year prison sentence, entered a 12-month drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility intended as an alternate sentencing program where T. could be placed in her care while she received counseling and instruction.
In its dispositional report, the department recommended the court deny both parents reunification services; Joseph because he was only T.’s biological father and services would not benefit T. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)) and petitioner because she failed to reunify with T.’s half-siblings and because her parental rights as to some of the half-siblings had been terminated and she failed to resolve the problems resulting in removal. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (b)(11).)
Section 361.5, subdivision (b) grants the juvenile court discretion to deny reunification services when it finds clear and convincing evidence the parent is described by any of the subparts contained therein. Subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11) provide:
In July, petitioner’s counselor and child development specialist provided letters attesting to petitioner’s progress in rehabilitation. According to petitioner’s counselor, she was fully participating in the program and her prognosis for completion was favorable. The specialist stated that visits between petitioner and T. were very positive and that T. would have no problem adjusting to life at the facility.
Petitioner and Joseph both appeared at the contested dispositional hearing in August. At petitioner’s request, the court entered the letters mentioned above into evidence and heard argument from her attorney that it should offer her reunification services based on her progress. County counsel conceded petitioner’s apparent motivation to recover but expressed concern that petitioner chose treatment to avoid a longer prison sentence and that she could be returned to prison if she did not comply with the program requirements.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adopted the department’s recommendations and denied both parents reunification services. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not challenge the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11). Rather, she claims she made arrangements to have T. placed with her at the treatment facility and argues the court should have placed T. there. In our view, the only reason to have placed T. with petitioner would have been for the purpose of reunification. Since the court denied petitioner the opportunity to reunify, it only follows that the court would not place T. back in her care. Consequently, we find no error.
That said, nothing precludes petitioner from filing a section 388 petition asking the court to provide her services. Section 388 allows the parent of a child adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to change, modify or set aside any order upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a).) To prevail on such a petition, petitioner would have to demonstrate that circumstances have changed and that modification based on that change would be in T.’s best interest. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
“(b) Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following: “[¶] . . . [¶]” “(10) [t]hat the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half-siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half-sibling after the sibling or half-sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of that child from that parent or guardian. “(11) [t]hat the parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half-sibling of the child had been permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half-sibling of that child from the parent.”