Opinion
H037647
01-31-2012
C. v. , Petitioner, v. THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD20291, JD20292, JD20293)
Petitioner C.V. (the mother) challenges by writ petition respondent court's order terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for her three children. We find no basis upon which to disturb the court's order and deny the mother's writ petition.
I. Background
The mother's three children, five-year-old Jo.M., three-year-old Ja.M., and eight-month-old H.R. (the children), were detained on August 31, 2010. Petitions were filed alleging that the mother's chronic ongoing substance abuse placed the children at risk of physical harm and neglect in her care. She had repeatedly left the children for multi-day periods with the children's great-grandparents, who were too aged and ill to care for them. The mother had an ongoing and longstanding methamphetamine habit. The fathers of the children were both incarcerated.
The maternal great-grandfather died in February 2011. The maternal great-grandmother was severely ill throughout the dependency proceedings.
At the detention hearing, the mother was granted supervised visitation. The mother, who was incarcerated, was present at the October 29, 2010 jurisdictional hearing, and she and both fathers signed written stipulations submitting the petition on the basis of the social worker's report. The court found the petition true.
At the time of the December 8, 2010 dispositional hearing, the mother remained incarcerated. The court removed the children from the mother's custody, placed the children in foster care, and ordered that the mother and both fathers be afforded reunification services. The mother's case plan required her to complete a specific parenting class and a program of counseling or psychotherapy, undergo random drug testing on a weekly basis, attend a 12-step program at least three times a week and provide verification of attendance, complete a substance abuse assessment, and participate in any recommended drug treatment programs. The court ordered that the mother was to have supervised weekly visits with the children.
The mother was released from jail in January 2011. Although the mother had completed a parenting class, attended NA, and completed a substance abuse program while she was in jail, the parenting class was not the one required by her case plan. She was consistently visiting the children.
The social worker asked the mother about possible placements for the children, but the mother told her "that there is no one in either the maternal or paternal families that she could think of." However, in February 2011, the maternal grandmother told the social worker that she would like to be considered for placement of the children. She had been having unsupervised visits with the children. However, she did not comply with the social worker's recommendations regarding improvements necessary to make her home suitable for the children. This was the same home in which the mother resided and had been residing in with the children and the great-grandparents at the time the children were detained. The social worker deemed the home, which lacked heating among other things, "an unsafe environment" for the children. In July 2011, the maternal grandmother told the social worker that she could not be a placement for the children because she was caring for the maternal great-grandmother, who was "quite ill." The father of the two older children told the social worker "that he does not have any family member who can be considered for placement . . . ."
The mother did not attend the July 13, 2011 six-month review hearing. The Department's recommendation was that the mother's services be continued but that services for the fathers be terminated. The mother had completed a parent orientation class, but she had not completed the specific parenting class required by her case plan. She had attended 12 sessions of counseling with a therapist. The mother had not been compliant with her drug testing requirements. She had failed to test on "many occasions when she has been required to test." The mother had not been attending the required number of NA meetings each week. She had continued to consistently visit the children, but she was often late for visits. The court continued her reunification services and her weekly visits with the children.
On October 4, 2011, the mother was sent a notice of the 12-month review hearing, which was scheduled for October 26 at 8:15 a.m. The mother attended that hearing, and it was continued to October 31 at 1:30 p.m. She did not appear at that hearing, and it was continued to November 22 at 8:30 a.m.
In November 2011, the maternal grandmother again contacted the social worker and said she desired placement of the children, but when the social worker contacted her she was unavailable to discuss the matter. At this point, the children were transitioning from a foster home, in which they had been placed for a year, to a prospective adoptive home.
The mother did not appear at the November 22, 2011 12-month review hearing. She was represented by counsel at the hearing, and her attorney sought a continuance due to her absence. He told the court that she was aware of the trial date and time. The court denied the continuance request. The Department recommended that the mother's services be terminated and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing be set. The mother still had not completed the specific parenting class required by her case plan. She had continued to be noncompliant with the drug testing requirement. She had failed to test on many occasions and had once submitted a sample that the lab determined was not urine.
The Department submitted on the social worker's reports. The children's foster parents, who had been designated their de facto parents, testified that the mother had nearly always been late for visits with the children, and they described how much the children needed permanency. The court terminated the mother's reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for March 19, 2012. The mother filed a pro per writ petition challenging the court's order.
II. Analysis
The mother's narrative petition asserts that her petition should be granted because (1) she completed her case plan, (2) the social worker made no effort to place the children with family or friends, (3) there was "no proof" of the "accusations" against the mother, which were "false," (4) the mother unknowingly "signed rights over" and wishes to "Rescind" that, (5) her failure to appear at the 12-month review hearing was attributable to her trial counsel's failure to stay in touch with her and her being told the wrong time for the trial, which caused her to arrive after the trial had been completed, (6) the social worker failed to increase her visits, and (7) the social worker discouraged her from going to school or seeking employment. Her claims are rebutted by the record before us.
The mother did not complete her case plan. She was noncompliant with drug testing required by the case plan and failed to complete the specific parenting class required by the case plan. These were not inconsequential elements of her case plan, as her substance abuse and her neglectful parenting were the primary factors leading to the children's detention.
The social worker made repeated efforts to come up with relative placements for the children, but the mother told her that none existed. The maternal grandmother failed to show a sustained interest in serving as a placement for the children. No other relative placements or other placements were ever suggested by the mother to the social worker despite the social worker's direct inquiries on this point.
The mother submitted on the social worker's reports at the jurisdictional hearing, and the mother admitted that she had a longstanding substance abuse problem and a current methamphetamine addiction. Thus, substantial evidence supported the jurisdictional findings.
At no point did the mother sign "rights over" as to the children. The only waiver she entered was her submission at the jurisdictional hearing. As the evidence indisputably supported the court's jurisdictional findings, this waiver was of little moment.
There is no evidence in the record before us that the mother's failure to appear at the 12-month review hearing was attributable to her attorney's negligence. He told the court that he had informed the mother of both the date and time of the hearing. The record suggests that the mother's failure to arrive on time for the hearing was attributable to her chronic lateness, rather than anyone else's negligence.
The social worker's failure to increase the visits was the result of the mother's failure to comply with her drug testing requirements. The record does not reflect that the social worker discouraged the mother from seeking education or employment, but even if this occurred, it would not impact on the court's finding that the mother had failed to comply with the most important elements of her case plan.
III. Disposition
The petition is denied.
_____________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR: _____________
Premo, Acting P. J.
_____________
Elia, J.