Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
Solano County Super. Ct. No. J39912.
SIGGINS, J.
I.J., the mother of minors R.D., Ro.D., J.D. and E.D., petitions under rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court to vacate an order setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother claims she should have been granted additional reunification services after the 12-month review hearing. The order setting the section 366.26 hearing is supported by substantial evidence, so we deny the petition on its merits.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. References to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
BACKGROUND
The four children were all under the age of five when the Solano County Department of Child Welfare Services (the Department) initiated this action. In January 2010 the Department learned the children were living with Mother in extraordinarily squalid conditions. Mother appeared unable to care for her children. During the case worker’s visits the children screamed, threw objects, hit and scratched one another, threw tantrums and cried excessively. Mother yelled at the children and yanked them by their arms instead of speaking to them. The children were filthy and dressed only in diapers. The three older children displayed dark marks on their skin and healing wounds on their backs, chests and arms. The only toy was one torn and dirty stuffed animal, which the children fought over. They presented as developmentally delayed. R.D., the oldest, was not yet speaking at almost five years of age.
Beginning in 2002, Mother had multiple referrals to the Department, substantiated and unsubstantiated, including referrals for physical abuse, testing positive for THC at her older daughter’s birth, and child abandonment and neglect. She had an extensive criminal record dating back to 1997 and a long history of homelessness. In 2008 she was jailed for failing to comply with court orders related to a child abuse conviction. Her brother told the case worker that Mother abused alcohol and drugs and had suffered from pervasive mental health issues throughout her adulthood. Three older children were in a court-ordered guardianship.
Mother participated in a voluntary family maintenance case plan from July through mid-November 2009 as a result of the Department’s previous involvement, but she failed to comply with its counseling and parenting components or to facilitate developmental, emotional and cognitive assessments for the children. Mother asked the Department to close her voluntary case plan early because she did not have time to participate in the recommended programs. The family situation was largely unaffected as a result of the voluntary case plan.
On January 12, 2010 Mother told the case worker she would start serving an eight-month jail term on February 1, 2010, and had arranged for a friend to care for the children while she was in jail. Neither she nor the friend could explain how the children’s expenses would be met during Mother’s incarceration, and the proposed caretaker had no plan for handling the children’s emotional and behavioral issues. The friend became confrontational and terminated the discussion when the case worker expressed her concern that the caretaker might have difficulties with the children.
The case worker determined there was a very high risk of neglect and abuse due to Mother’s mental health issues, criminal history including physical abuse of at least one child, and her inability to provide adequate care for and control over the children. The Department recommended foster care based on the risk of neglect and abuse, the lack of an available relative caretaker, Mother’s substandard living conditions, and her failure to arrange for a suitable caretaker during her incarceration. The court agreed, and the children were detained and placed in foster care.
The court found R.D. Jr. to be the children’s presumed father. The Department filed an amended petition adding allegations concerning R.D. Jr.’s substance abuse, multiple incarcerations for drug possession and sale, and numerous incidents of domestic violence involving Mother.
Mother and Father submitted to jurisdictional allegations of child neglect (§ 300, subd. (b)), domestic violence (§ 300, subd. (c)), and abuse and neglect of siblings (§ 300, subd. (j).) The Department recommended continued out-of-home placement and that reunification services be provided to both parents.
Mother started her jail term on February 5, 2010. In the Department’s report for the disposition hearing, the case worker reported that Mother’s attitude had improved and she was willing to participate in supportive services for herself and her children. While in jail she was receiving psychiatric treatment for depression and participating in a program to address substance abuse, anger management and domestic abuse. Father’s few visits with the children had been positive but inconsistent, and he was not taking advantage of referrals for services to address his substance abuse, parenting skills and anger management.
Both parents apparently submitted on the dispositional report. The court adjudicated the children dependents, ordered the Department to provide reunification services to both parents and set a six-month status review hearing for October 21, 2010.
The Department’s report for the six-month review hearing recommended that the court continue Mother’s reunification services for six more months and terminate services for Father. Father had been booked on new criminal charges the previous month. He had failed to maintain contact with the Department, visit the children, or participate in services. Mother had been transferred from the Solano County Jail to state prison in Chowchilla in late April 2010, and she expected to be released in October 2010. She attempted to enroll in various parenting and substance abuse programs at Chowchilla, but could not do so because of her approaching release date. She kept in contact with her children and the Department through writing. The court terminated Father’s reunification services, extended Mother’s services for six months, and set a 12-month review hearing for March 12, 2011.
The Department’s report for the 12-month review recommended terminating Mother’s reunification services and setting the case for an implementation and selection hearing. Mother had not visited the children, contacted the Department or made herself available for reunification services since her release from prison six months earlier in October 2010. Multiple attempts to locate her were unsuccessful.
The children were receiving health and developmental services and therapy. They had progressed well in their placements. The foster parent who was caring for twins Ro.D. and J.D. was interested in adopting all four siblings, and the foster family agency had applied for a room exemption so that the siblings could live together in the foster/adoptive home. The paternal grandfather was assessed as a potential caretaker but found to be ineligible due to his lack of housing, a recent arrest for spousal abuse and related restraining order, and a current bench warrant for failing to appear in court for an arraignment. The Department recommended a permanent plan of adoption of all four children by the twins’ foster parent.
Both parents requested a contested 12-month review hearing, which was held on April 4, 2011. Father did not attend. The case worker testified that she made multiple unsuccessful efforts to contact Mother after her release from prison. On February 24, 2011 Mother left the case worker a phone message saying that she had just gotten back into town. She said her mother had passed away a month before her release from prison and she needed to “get herself together” to be able to provide for her children. Mother left her brother’s phone number on the message as her contact information. The case worker called the brother and scheduled an appointment for March 3, 2011, but Mother did not show up for the meeting or contact the case worker to reschedule it.
Mother testified that she participated in a domestic violence, parenting and substance abuse program in the county jail, but no services were available or provided to her in Chowchilla other than psychological counseling. Her requests for visitation in jail were denied due to staffing shortages. Mother stayed with some friends and an aunt after she was released, and then went to Mississippi to find a place to “start over.” Now that she had returned to Solano County, Mother said she wanted to visit with the children and was willing to work on her case plan services.
The court found the Department offered reasonable reunification services, that Mother made no progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating foster placement, and that returning the children to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection or well-being. It ordered the case set for a selection and implementation hearing on July 26, 2011. Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
Court-ordered reunification services may be extended to a maximum of 18 months from the date a child was originally removed from the parent’s custody, but only if the court finds a substantial probability that the child will be returned to his or her parent within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Mother contends the court should have extended her reunification period because her “current circumstances were such that there was a substantial probability she would be able to reunify if given an additional six months.” Essentially, she disputes the court’s implicit finding that there was not a substantial probability she could reunify with her children if given 18, rather than 12, months of reunification services. We review that finding to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the juvenile court’s ruling and draw all legitimate inferences in its favor. (Elijah R. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) Mother has the burden to show the evidence was not sufficient to support the court’s findings and order. (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
To find a substantial probability the child will be returned within the extended reunification period, the court must find the parent has: (1) consistently and regularly visited with the child; (2) made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal; and (3) demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objectives of her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1); rule 5.715(4)(A).) Here, Mother made no attempt to visit her children during the critical six months between her release from prison and the 12-month review hearing. Her explanation that she needed time to deal with her mother’s death is not a substitute for consistent and regular visitation during the preceding six months. Moreover, the record is sadly bare of evidence that Mother had progressed toward resolving the grave problems that necessitated the children’s removal from her care or demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete her case plan and meet their needs. The court appropriately declined to find a substantial probability that mother would be able reunify with her children if given six additional months of reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The order to show cause is discharged, and the petition for extraordinary writ is denied on the merits. (See § 366.26, subd. (l); In re Julie S. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 988, 990-991.) Our decision is final immediately. (Rules 8.452(i) & 8.490(b).)
We concur: McGuiness, P.J., Pollak, J.