Opinion
A167834
06-30-2023
D.H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JD213277
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodriguez, J.
At a 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated D.H.'s (mother) reunification services as to her son, Kristian G., and scheduled a permanency planning hearing (Welf. &Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, 366.26).Mother petitions for extraordinary writ relief. We deny the petition on the merits.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, "the facts of the case and its procedural history." (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court's decision "does not merit extensive factual or legal statement"].)
In late 2021, then 13-month-old Kristian came to the attention of the San Francisco Human Services Agency due to ongoing domestic violence perpetrated by Kristian's father against mother in view of Kristian and mother's other children. Mother was entitled to - and she received more than - 12 months of reunification services after Kristian was removed from her care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) We perceive no error in the juvenile court's decision to terminate her reunification services at the 12-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)-(5) [enumerating dispositional options when a child is not returned to parental custody at 12-month review hearing].) The court did not, as mother contends, apply the "wrong" standard of proof at the hearing.
We acknowledge and laud mother's work to address the domestic violence in her relationships. (See In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11, 2526.) Nevertheless, ample evidence supports the juvenile court's findings that although she had made some progress in attempting to break the cyclical pattern of abuse, she hadn't demonstrated a substantial probability Kristian could be returned to her custody and safely maintained in her home within the statutory time period. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C) [listing requirements a parent must satisfy to receive reunification services until 18-month mark]; James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1016, 1021.) Mother drank wine every morning, missed numerous drug tests, and failed to consistently attend domestic violence counseling sessions. Her concession that there was "conflicting evidence" on the extent of her progress dooms her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's order. And she does not persuasively argue it was safe to return Kristian to her care at the 12-month review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).)
DISPOSITION
Mother's petition for extraordinary writ relief is denied on the merits, and her request for a stay is denied as moot. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(h).) This decision is final immediately. (Id., rules 8.452(i), 8.490(b).)
WE CONCUR: Fujisaki, Acting P. J. Petrou, J.