Opinion
F080229
02-13-2020
EVELYN G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Evelyn G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Angela J. Cobb, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Stanislaus Super. Ct. No. 517883)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Evelyn G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Angela J. Cobb, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Evelyn G. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court's order issued on October 31, 2019, setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for February 28, 2020, to consider a permanent plan of adoption for her now seven-year-old daughter, A.G. The purpose of the section 366.26 hearing was to consider a new permanent plan for A.G. as the court had already approved legal guardianship as her permanent plan at a section 366.26 hearing in July 2019. Mother contends she completely complied with her court-ordered reunification plan and seeks a writ of mandate either returning A.G. to her custody or providing her additional time to reunify. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Petitioner prematurely submitted a writ petition to this court regarding A.G., which was received on November 7, 2019. We construe the premature writ petition as the petition in this case because petitioner was provided an opportunity to file a supplemental petition but failed to do so. In response to our letter, she filed a writ petition in this case number challenging the juvenile court's November 19, 2019 order terminating her parental rights as to A.G.'s younger sibling, Ar.G. She subsequently filed a notice of appeal and an appeal is pending as to Ar.G. in our case No. F080592. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Dependency proceedings were initiated in March 2017 after the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took then four-year-old A.G. into protective custody. Mother had left her in the care of a transient who apparently left town, leaving her in the care of another transient. A.G. ultimately ended up with a woman who was a stranger to mother and who could not care for A.G. Not knowing how to get in touch with mother, the stranger contacted the agency.
The agency filed a dependency petition on A.G.'s behalf and placed her in foster care. A.G. had to be treated for a swollen and infected big toe. She also had an infection on her tongue and head lice, which required multiple treatments.
Mother contacted the agency two days after A.G. was taken into protective custody. She explained she hurt her ankle and was unable to care for A.G. She said she left A.G. with a friend, not knowing her friend left town and left A.G. with someone else. She did not have a stable residence and no family or friends capable and willing to care for A.G. She was also approximately three months pregnant.
Mother appeared at the detention hearing and the agency provided her service referrals. She quickly entered detox and treatment and moved into Redwood Family Center (Redwood).
In April 2017, the juvenile court adjudged A.G. a dependent child and ordered mother to participate in reunification services. The court denied services to A.G.'s alleged father, Juan G., whose whereabouts were unknown.
The agency recommended the juvenile court continue services for mother at the six-month review hearing and grant it discretion to begin overnight visits and a trial visit. Mother was participating regularly in services, with a brief interruption when her son, Ar.G., was born in August 2017. Mother was still in Phase I of her three-phase drug treatment program and was just beginning counseling services. She visited A.G. regularly and there were no concerns. The staff at Redwood, however, struggled with mother's "disruptive, impulsive and immature" behavior. Although her behavior improved following a meeting with her treatment team, her clinician recommended she undergo a psychological evaluation.
In October 2017, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued mother's reunification services and granted the agency discretion to begin overnight visitation and a trial visit.
Mother began overnight visits with A.G. at Redwood on October 4, 2017. A.G., however, could not understand why Ar.G. was able to stay with mother at Redwood and she could not. On December 4, the agency decided to begin a trial visit after A.G.'s behavior began to deteriorate. However, on January 5, 2018, mother turned herself in to authorities to serve a two-year sentence for a probation violation stemming from a 2015 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. The agency placed A.G. and Ar.G. in the home of A.G.'s former foster parents.
A.G. had a severe reaction to mother's incarceration. She exhibited very aggressive behavior; punching, kicking, pulling hair, destroying property and attempting to jump out of moving vehicles, and required intensive in-home therapy. Attempts were made to have A.G. visit mother at the jail, but A.G.'s behavior was "explosive," rendering in-person visits unsafe.
Mother was evaluated by Dr. Edward Moles, who diagnosed her with an antisocial personality disorder and opined that an additional six months of services would not enable her to adequately care for A.G. Dr. Moles stated mother was unable to accept that she had a problem and wanted to blame others. As an example, her response to nearly being kicked out of drug treatment was "they don't get me." Dr. Moles's opinion was also based on mother's neglect of A.G. and the probability she would be incarcerated at some point in the near future. He recommended the juvenile court terminate her reunification services. The agency, however, recommended the juvenile court continue mother's reunification services.
The juvenile court continued mother's reunification services at the 12-month review hearing in March 2018. Mother was released from custody in August 2018 and was accepted back into Redwood. Given mother's recent release and significant progress, the court continued her reunification services at the 18-month review hearing in September 2018 and set the 24-month review hearing for February 2019.
Mother did well in her services for the first month following her release. However, in October 2018, the social worker received an incident report from Redwood stating mother was being disruptive during the in-house meeting and kicked a toy when she did not get her meeting slip signed. Approximately a week later, the social worker received an email from mother's substance abuse counselor informing her mother consistently slept in group, talked and was disengaged. When asked to go to the front office and talk to management, she refused. She also reinforced A.G.'s negative behavior and declined to participate in A.G.'s therapy to learn how to help her. The social worker did not feel the children would be safe if mother were allowed to take them on a community visit.
In February 2019, at the 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother's reunification services as to A.G. and set a section 366.26 hearing for June 27, 2019. A.G.'s foster parents filed a request to be designated her de facto parents, which the court granted in June 2019.
The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate mother's parental rights and approve A.G.'s adoption by her caregivers. A.G. was doing better behaviorally but was behind academically. She was still receiving intensive mental health services. Her foster parents loved her, and she was extremely bonded to them. She made tremendous strides in their care and stated she felt safe and happy in their home. Meanwhile, however, Ar.G. appeared on track to reunify with mother as he was having overnight visits with her. The court appointed special advocate expressed concern that A.G. would be emotionally harmed if Ar.G. reunified with mother and recommended the court place the children with mother under family maintenance services.
On July 23, 2019, the juvenile court conducted a section 366.26 hearing as to A.G. and an 18-month review hearing as to Ar.G. Prior to the hearing, the agency filed an addendum report changing its recommendation for A.G. from adoption to legal guardianship with her foster parents. The court adopted the agency's recommendation and set a review hearing for January 14, 2020. The court terminated mother's reunification services as to Ar.G. and set a section 366.26 hearing for November 20, 2019.
On October 1, 2019, the agency filed a modification petition under section 388, asking the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of adoption by A.G.'s foster parents. Her foster parents wanted to adopt Ar.G. and the agency believed it would be in A.G.'s best interest to be adopted by them also.
On October 31, 2019, the juvenile court granted the agency's petition and set a section 366.26 hearing for February 28, 2020. Mother appeared with her attorney and was advised of her right to file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends she did everything possible to reunify with A.G.; she completed every requirement of her reunification plan, applied for jobs and was on a waiting list for an apartment. She claims January 9, 2018, as her clean and sober date. In addition to requesting custody of A.G. or more time to reunify, she also requests a bonding study.
Once the juvenile court sets a section 366.26 hearing, reunification is no longer the goal. Rather, the goal is to select a permanent plan for the child, preferably adoption. Here, the court terminated mother's reunification services in February 2019 after providing her two years of reunification services. At that point, the goal was to establish a permanent plan for A.G. in the care of her foster parents. At that hearing in February 2019, the court also set a section 366.26 hearing. When the court sets a section 366.26 hearing from a review hearing, as occurred here, California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 allows a parent to challenge the court's decisions regarding custody of the child and reunification services, including the parent's compliance with the services plan. Mother, however, did not file a writ petition from the setting hearing in February 2019. Further, since the court's findings and orders made at that hearing are now final, we cannot review them. Consequently, whether mother complied with her services plan or is able to provide A.G. a home is no longer relevant to the proceedings.
In July 2019, the juvenile court conducted a section 366.26 hearing as to A.G. and selected legal guardianship with her foster parents as her permanent plan. Not long after, when it became clear the foster parents were willing to adopt A.G. and Ar.G., the court set a section 366.26 hearing to select a new permanent plan for A.G. The setting of a subsequent section 366.26 hearing to change the permanent plan does not reopen the options of parental custody or reunification. Consequently, this court can neither review mother's contentions nor grant her the relief she requests on this writ petition, including a bonding study. Nothing, however, precludes mother from challenging the agency's evidence and recommended findings and orders at the section 366.26 hearing on February 28, 2020, with the assistance of her court-appointed attorney.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.