Opinion
2d Juv. B325166
04-18-2023
C.R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
C.R., in pro. per, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Ann Duggan and Debra K. Barriger, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo No. 22JD-00277 Brian R. Aronson, Judge
C.R., in pro. per, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Ann Duggan and Debra K. Barriger, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
GILBERT, P. J.
Petitioner C.R. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief following the juvenile court's order terminating family reunification services with her infant daughter, Z.R., and setting a permanent plan hearing. We conclude that the court's order is supported by sufficient evidence, and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother, the parent to eight children, has a long history with the child dependency system, including for neglect and abuse of her children, chronic drug abuse, and criminality. Prior to the filing in Z.R.'s dependency proceeding, Mother's seven children had been removed from her care at different times. Mother's parental rights to three children were later terminated and those children have been adopted. In 2019, Mother reunified with three of her remaining children and a fourth child has now reached adulthood.
In 2021, Mother was arrested and charged with child abuse following her physical acts (striking and threatening with a screwdriver) against two of her minor sons. As a result, another dependency action has been filed and is pending currently. The juvenile court has terminated family reunification services regarding these two minor sons.
In April 2022, Mother pleaded nolo contendere to child abuse and received a grant of formal probation with a condition of 60 days' confinement in county jail. Mother intended to surrender to custody in March 2023.
In August 2022, the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (Department) received a report alleging that Mother was abusing drugs and neglecting infant Z.R. A Department social worker spoke with Mother who then agreed to drug testing. Mother missed testing on one occasion and tested positive for methamphetamine on two other occasions. Further, between August 16, 2022, and September 19, 2022, Mother was unable to provide a urine sample for testing on three occasions, failed to appear to test on one occasion, and gave a urine substitute on another occasion. Mother also failed to regularly attend drug and alcohol services group meetings.
On September 27, 2022, the Department filed a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(D), alleging that Mother failed to protect Z.R. due to her chronic substance abuse. The following day, the juvenile court removed Z.R. from Mother's care and set a jurisdiction hearing for October 13, 2022. Z.R. was placed with a maternal relative.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother and her attorney appeared at the jurisdiction hearing and Mother submitted on the Department's petition. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and set a disposition hearing for November 10, 2022. Prior to the disposition hearing, Mother entered residential drug treatment. Mother tested negative for drugs during her residential treatment and expressed her interest in staying drug-free. Based upon Mother's progress in rehabilitation, the Department recommended that she receive reunification services. Z.R.'s attorney disagreed with this recommendation and a contested disposition hearing was then scheduled.
At the December 14, 2022, disposition hearing, the Department social worker, a drug and alcohol counselor, and Mother testified. Following the receipt of testimony and Department reports, the juvenile court decided to bypass reunification services to Mother based upon her failure to reunify with three of Z.R.'s half-siblings. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)(A).) The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reunification services were not in Z.R.'s best interests. In ruling, the juvenile court judge stated: "[B]ased on the history, based on how much [Mother] needs to overcome, I just don't see a reasonable likelihood the services are going to be successful; . . . that she'll benefit from them. And then, of course, the competing interest is the desire to provide permanency to the child."
Mother now seeks an extraordinary writ vacating the juvenile court's order denying reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing. She also seeks reinstatement of reunification services, visitation, and return of custody of Z.R.
DISCUSSION
Mother's petition contains no citations to the record or to legal authority supporting her request for relief. California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 governs the mandatory elements of an extraordinary writ petition to challenge the denial or termination of family reunification services. These elements include a summary of significant facts, presentation of each point separately, and citation to legal authority. Mother's form petition, submitted in propria persona, does not contain these elements. Nevertheless, we shall exercise our discretion and consider the merits of the bypass and termination of reunification services to Mother and Z.R. (Nahid H. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1056.)
We review an order denying reunification services pursuant to section 361.5 for substantial evidence. (Jennifer S. v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1121.) Thus, we review the entire record most favorably to the juvenile court's findings to determine if substantial evidence supports the findings. (Id. at p. 1122.) We do not make credibility determinations or reweigh the evidence. (Id. at p. 1121.)
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(A), states that reunification services need not be provided if the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that 1) reunification services have been terminated for any siblings or half-siblings of the dependent child because the parent failed to reunify with the sibling or half-sibling; and 2) the parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling or half-sibling of the dependent child. (In re I.A. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 19, 24.) The court may order reunification services, however, if it finds that reunification is in the best interest of the child. (Ibid.) The burden rests upon the parent to establish the best interest of the child. (Ibid.)
Here the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that bypassing reunification services was warranted based upon Mother's extensive history with the dependency system. Over a course of 12 years, all of Mother's children were removed from her care. Mother received reunification services during that period but was unable to reform her behavior and chronic drug use. She continued to use drugs in August and September 2022 after the Department intervened with Z.R. In 2012, her twin daughters were removed from her custody at birth due to her drug use. Her parental rights to these daughters were later terminated as well as to a daughter born during Mother's incarceration in 2014. The court also recently denied reunification services for Mother concerning the physical abuse of her two sons in 2021.
Mother's recent efforts at reformation are laudable but the record reflects that she has been unable to remain substance free for more than a brief period of time even after many years of reunification services. "[A]t least part of the best interest analysis must be a finding that further reunification services have a likelihood of success. In other words, there must be some 'reasonable basis to conclude' that reunification is possible before services are offered to a parent who need not be provided them." (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1228-1229.) Sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's findings.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
We concur: YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J.