Opinion
G032561.
10-22-2003
G. V., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Juvenile Defenders and Donna P. Chirco for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency. Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Linda M. ONeil for Real Party in Interest Minor Giovanni R.
G. V. seeks extraordinary relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) from Orange County Juvenile Court orders terminating reunification services and scheduling a permanency hearing for her son, Giovanni R., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Her sole contention is that the court erred when it declined to offer her six additional months of reunification services. Claiming she had made substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan, she argues we should direct the trial court to set aside the orders denying additional services and calendaring the permanency hearing. Having reviewed the petition on the merits, we deny the requested relief.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I
Facts and Proceedings Below
Giovanni R. was born in October 2002, with a positive toxicology screen for opiates and methadone. His mother, 37-year-old G. V., a veteran heroin user, admitted ingesting the drug during her pregnancy and failed to obtain prenatal care. Not surprisingly, Giovanni exhibited typical withdrawal symptoms upon birth — crying, jitteriness, body tremors, and difficulty eating.
Another son, Jesse, had been born with heroin in his system in 1987. He was briefly removed from his mothers care until she started methadone treatment. An above average student and athlete, Jesse appeared well cared for. He was unaware of his mothers drug use and was not detained.
G. V. pleaded no contest to the allegations her child was born with opiates in his system and she failed to obtain prenatal care. The juvenile court ordered the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to prepare a case plan, including reunification services. The plan required G. V. to attend parenting classes, counseling, drug testing, and Narcotics Anonymous (NA), but did not mandate an SSA-approved drug treatment program.
By the July 2003 six-month review, it appeared G. V. had made progress on certain components of the case plan. She completed a 10-week parenting course, weekly counseling sessions through Olive Crest and a methadone clinic, and received good marks. She participated in weekly NA sessions, although she did not have a sponsor. Twice weekly monitored visits with Giovanni went well, and the foster mother reported he smiled at his mother during visits. G. V. supplied the foster mother with baby items, called between visits, and monitored her sons health. She also maintained stable housing, continuing to live with family members.
Unfortunately, G. V. fell short in other areas. She tested positive for drugs — morphine or heroin — on at least five occasions and lied to the social worker to explain the positive tests. Later, she admitted using drugs to her counselor, but expressed genuine remorse. Noting G. V.s dependence on her family for money, transportation and help with Jesse, her counselor reported she lacked insight and tried to downplay her addiction, i.e., she did not "get that high . . . like other drug users."
G. V. asked the social worker about the countys perinatal drug treatment program, but learned she was ineligible because she was taking methadone. A drug counseling referral to "La Familia" met a similar fate. A referral to a drug program open to methadone users came late, in May 2003. There were no positive tests in the two months leading up to the July review hearing (the last positive test was April 23).
Social worker Lillian Drechsler acknowledged G. V.s regular participation and progress in her programs, with the exception of the positive drug results. Drechsler felt additional monitored visits would not pose a risk. Asked whether Giovanni might be safely returned to G. V. if she received six more months of services, the social worker said it was "hard to answer that question just because we dont know how moms going to progress with the substance abuse program shes enrolled in." Drechsler believed G. V. would have to demonstrate significant progress in her drug program and no longer use methadone before Giovanni could be safely returned. Based on G. V.s past performance, the social worker concluded continued methadone use would also lead to "chipping" (occasional use of heroin) and the child would be neglected: "If shes under the influence, you know, she puts him at risk of something happening to him." G. V. was "functional" while on methadone: she was able to keep her appointments and clean houses a couple of days per week. Based on conversations with workers at the methadone clinic, Drechsler learned methadone doses could only be decreased slowly, and it was apparent G. V. faced a difficult task in freeing herself from drug dependency.
Called as a witness by SSA, G. V. denied heroin use since the preceding October, although admitting regular use of the drug before that time. She attributed subsequent positive drug tests to her uncles prescription medications, drugs she took for leg pain or sores that arose when she stopped taking methadone. She could not explain the positive heroin tests and admitted she did not know any of the NA "steps."
The court found G. V. had not made substantive progress on her treatment plan because she was still abusing drugs with little prospect of improvement. Despite her attendance at various programs, she had not learned anything about her addiction, as shown by her continued use of heroin and ignorance of NA program requirements. Services were denied and a permanency hearing was scheduled for November 5, 2003.
II
DISCUSSION
Per section 366.21, subdivision (e), if a child is under the age of three years when removed and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent has failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a section 366.26 hearing, unless there is a substantial probability the child may be returned to his or her parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided. In those circumstances, the court must continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing. We will affirm a juvenile courts order terminating reunification services if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.)
Here, the record contains ample evidence to support the juvenile courts findings. True, petitioner completed many of the elements of her case plan, but she failed to make substantive progress in addressing her substance abuse, the most critical component of the plan. Despite methadone treatment, she continued to use heroin, and then minimized or lied about her problem up to the time of the six-month review. Because G. V. stopped using heroin only two months before the review hearing, and did not understand the phases of the NA program, the court could reasonably conclude G. V. lacked the insight and discipline to overcome her drug dependency. Jesses ability to flourish under similar circumstances was favorable evidence but G. V.s family undoubtedly contributed to his success. Based on all the evidence, however, the court concluded G. V. had not made substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan. The record supports the courts conclusion. There are no grounds for reversal.
The petition for extraordinary writ and request for a stay of the November 5, 2003 permanency hearing are denied.
We concur: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. and IKOLA, J.