Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court of Santa Barbara County Super. Ct. No. J1285379, James E. Herman, Judge.
E.L., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marhsall, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy, for Real Party in Interest.
GILBERT, P.J.
E.L. seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order denying family reunification services for her son, and setting the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 6, 2008, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services ("CWS") filed a dependency petition on behalf of eight-year-old R. CWS alleged E.L. had a public altercation with her son, his father was absent from the family home, and that in 2000, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to her six children. CWS also alleged that police officers investigating the altercation found that E.L. was intoxicated and that she had marijuana and a methamphetamine pipe in her home. CWS alleged that E.L. failed to protect R., that he was left with no provisions for support, and that she had abused his half-siblings. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g), (j).)
On May 7, 2008, the juvenile court ordered that R. be detained. On June 2, 2008, E.L. submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The court then set the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
In the interim, CWS recommended that the juvenile court not order family reunification services to E.L. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11).) CWS provided documentary evidence that in 2000, the juvenile court terminated E.L.'s parental rights to six of her children. The records indicate that E.L. did not reunify with her children despite 18 months of family reunification services. Moreover, in 1998, the juvenile court removed two of E.L.'s then eight children and returned them to their respective fathers.
At the contested disposition hearing in this matter, E.L. testified that she had a 36-year problem with alcohol and that she suffered from bipolar disorder. She stated that the altercation with her son occurred during a "blackout." E.L. also testified that she recently became sober and had completed parent education classes.
After receiving additional evidence, the juvenile court concluded that "the same issues that resulted in the termination of parental rights [in 2000] still exist." The court also decided that there was not "any possibility that reunification services [would] assist [E.L.] in, ultimately, reunifying and parenting [R.]." The court then denied family reunification services to E.L. and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanent plan hearing.
E.L., in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ vacating the juvenile court order.
DISCUSSION
Section 361.5, subdivision (b) provides that reunification services need not be provided to a parent if the juvenile court makes enumerated findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence. (In re Albert T. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 217.) Subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11) concern findings of court-ordered termination of reunification services or severance of parental rights regarding siblings or half-siblings where the parent has not made "a reasonable effort" to treat the problems leading to removal of custody of the sibling or half-sibling. Thus subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11) each require a finding that the parent has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of a sibling or half-sibling. (Albert T., at p. 217.) This finding mitigates the otherwise harsh rule that permits a denial of services despite the parent's efforts to overcome earlier problems. (Id. at p. 218.)
We review the juvenile court's findings pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b) for sufficient evidentiary support. (In re Albert T., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 216.) In this task, we review the entire record to determine if the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom support the findings of the juvenile court. (Ibid.) We do not reweigh the evidence or redetermine the credibility of witnesses. (Ibid.)
Sufficient evidence supports the findings of the juvenile court. In 2000, E.L.'s parental rights were terminated because she abused drugs and alcohol and neglected her children. These issues also existed at the time of R.'s removal from her custody. Moreover, E.L. attacked R. in the street, causing marks on his neck and shoulder. Although the juvenile court noted that E.L. had attended parent education classes and remained sober in the three months following R.'s removal, her efforts were nascent and insufficient in view of her lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse and neglect of her children.
E.L. also did not establish that family reunification was in R.'s best interest. A parent may overcome the findings of section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11) by showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in a child's best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c); In re Ethan N. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 55, 65.) Here R. informed CWS social workers that he prepared his own food, did not know his birthdate or the names of his grandparents, and suffered frequent physical abuse from his mother. He stated that he liked his present foster home and participated in the foster family activities. Sufficient evidence supports the findings of the juvenile court.
We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
We concur: COFFEE, J., PERREN, J.