Opinion
F054654
4-15-2008
ESTHER C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE CO. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Esther C., in pro per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Carol E. Helding, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 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 G. 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
G. was first removed from petitioners custody in May 1998 when she was born with a reported blood alcohol level symptomatic of alcohol poisoning. G.s half-sister, P., then four years old was also removed. Petitioner, a long standing alcoholic, participated in court-ordered family reunification services, which resulted in return of the children to her custody and dismissal of dependency jurisdiction by June 2001.
The instant dependency proceedings were initiated in September 2005 when P. and G., then 11 and 7 years old respectively, were removed from petitioners custody after petitioner struck G. with a belt causing bruising. The court ordered the children removed from petitioners custody and ordered family reunification services for petitioner. In May 2006, the court returned the children to petitioners custody under a plan of family maintenance and set a family maintenance review hearing for November 2006.
Petitioner complied with her services until August 2006 when P. was involved in a single car accident and died from her injuries. After P.s death, petitioner was inconsolable and unable to participate in her case plan. She made arrangements for G. to remain with family friends until she could resume custody of her.
The juvenile court continued family maintenance services at the review hearings in November 2006 and April 2007. In its report for the October 2007 family maintenance review hearing, the social services department (department) reported that petitioner had lost contact with the department and had not maintained ongoing contact with G. The department recommended the court set a review hearing in January 2008 to give the social worker more time to contact petitioner and discuss options for G.s long-term care. The department reported that G. was doing well in her placement and excelling in school and the care takers were committed to caring for her as long as necessary. At the review hearing in October 2007, the court set a review hearing for January 3, 2008.
In December 2007, the department filed a supplemental petition (§ 387), alleging petitioner was homeless and unemployed and emotionally abandoned G. by failing to contact her for weeks and months at a time. According to G.s caretakers, petitioner had seen G. only twice since P.s death in August 2006.
On December 21, 2007, the juvenile court ordered G. detained pursuant to the supplemental petition and found family maintenance was ineffective in protecting G. Petitioner was present at the hearing and ordered to return for the combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing (combined hearing) on the supplemental petition which the court set for January 24, 2008. The court vacated the family maintenance review hearing set for January 3, 2008.
In anticipation of the combined hearing on the supplemental petition, the department filed a report recommending the court terminate reunification services and deny petitioner reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(9) on the theory petitioner abandoned G.
On January 24, 2008, the juvenile court convened the combined hearing. Petitioner did not personally appear but was represented by counsel who did not challenge the truth of the allegations in the supplemental petition but argued petitioners abandonment was not the result of intentional harm but rather a result of her emotional state. Petitioners attorney argued for additional mental health support to facilitate reunification but acknowledged that petitioner was not in a position to resume custody of G. at that time.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court adopted the departments recommendations with respect to services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan for G. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
By her petition, petitioner seeks return of G. to her custody, continuation of reunification services, and visitation. In that petitioner did not request custody of G. at the combined hearing, she is precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502.) With respect to visitation, the court did not deny petitioner visitation. Rather, the court ordered weekly supervised visitation with departmental discretion to increase the length and frequency and even graduate to unsupervised visitation with the consent of G.s attorney. Consequently, we will not address custody or visitation.
The crux of petitioners argument concerns reunification services. She in essence faults the juvenile court for not continuing reunification services when she made proper arrangements for G.s care and, in her mind, just needed more time to secure employment and a home. The answer lies in the Legislatures 18-month limitation on services and the absence of compelling reasons to continue them beyond that timeframe. By our calculations, petitioner received approximately 28 months of combined family reunification and family maintenance services, far in excess of the 18 months contemplated by section 366.22, subdivision (a). Further, during the final 18 of those 28 months, petitioner was not participating in services at all. Granted, she was grieving the tragic loss of P. during that time. Nevertheless, she abdicated her role as G.s parent to others for a significant period of time and there was no indication that she was willing or capable of providing for and parenting G. While the court may exercise its discretion and extend services beyond 18 months where it serves the childs best interest, such is not the case here. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 169.) According to the record, G. loved living with her newfound family and called the caretakers "mom" and "dad." Since we affirm the juvenile courts termination of reunification services and to the extent petitioner may be challenging it, we need not address its simultaneous denial of services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(9). We find no error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.