Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
HULL, J.
J.C., mother of the minor, appeals from the judgment of disposition of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 361, 395; unspecified statutory references that follow are to this code.) Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s order denying her services and the court failed to consider placing the minor with the maternal grandmother. We affirm.
FACTS
The minor, who tested positive for cocaine at birth, was first removed from appellant’s custody in July 2004 at the age of eight months due to appellant’s ongoing substance abuse problem as evidenced by a relapse from treatment. Appellant participated in various services, including substance abuse treatment, and eventually reunified with the minor who had been placed with the maternal grandmother. The court terminated the first dependency in December 2005.
Five months later, the minor was again placed in protective custody based on allegations of appellant’s renewed substance abuse. The emergency response worker found the minor’s father under the influence and observed evidence that both appellant and the minor were living, at least part of the time, in the father’s house. The worker located the minor at the maternal grandmother’s home and spoke to the maternal grandmother, who had not seen the mother and did not know where she was. When interviewed the day after the minors were removed, appellant stated she was pregnant, denied recent drug use, and agreed to test.
After the first court appearance on May 23, 2006, the early intervention specialist interviewed appellant, who appeared to be under the influence at the time. Appellant first said she used marijuana the day the minors were removed then said she had taken Vicodin she bought on the street and also had used cocaine about two weeks ago. Appellant told the worker cocaine was currently her drug of choice although she had been using drugs for nearly 20 years. Appellant acknowledged she previously gave birth to a child who tested positive for drugs. Appellant minimized her drug use and its effect on her parenting skills. The worker referred appellant for testing and a 12-step program and recommended a referral to Drug Court.
When interviewed by the social worker for the jurisdiction/disposition report, appellant admitted using drugs the day the minors were detained “to take my mind off things.” Appellant stated the maternal grandmother was the minor’s primary caretaker. Appellant spent her nights at the father’s home. According to the report, appellant tested positive for cocaine on May 23, May 26 and June 2, 2006. (Although the report stated the June 2, 2006 test was positive for cocaine, at trial it appeared that this test was positive for alcohol.) The social worker assessed the maternal grandmother for placement of the minor but did not recommend the placement because the maternal grandmother had health problems including recent foot surgery and open heart surgery. Further, appellant lived with the maternal grandmother who seemed to be unaware of appellant’s and the father’s current substance abuse problems. Due to appellant’s history of substance abuse and use of drugs while pregnant, admission that the maternal grandmother was the minor’s primary caregiver and resumption of drug use after successful treatment, the social worker recommended denying appellant further services.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in July 2006, appellant testified she did test positive for cocaine after the detention hearing and also admitted to using Vicodin but said she was not currently using drugs. Appellant agreed that she had additional positive drug tests in May 2006 but noted she had been clean for two months. She characterized her resumption of drug use as a relapse due to stress.
The investigating social worker testified she saw appellant’s and the minor’s belongings at the father’s home and they did not appear to merely be stored there. A second social worker testified that appellant tested positive for cocaine on May 19, May 23, and May 26, 2006.
The maternal grandmother testified she was unaware appellant had a problem with cocaine and knew nothing about drugs.
The court sustained the petition as amended and proceeded to disposition. The court found that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) applied to appellant, noting, among other facts, appellant’s positive test for cocaine on the day the minor was removed, admission of cocaine use two weeks prior to the minor’s removal, admission of cocaine use when depressed, buying Vicodin on the street, and appearing at the substance abuse assessment under the influence. The court further stated it could not find that reunification was in the best interest of the minor because appellant was not the minor’s primary caretaker. The court found visitation with the grandparents was in the minor’s best interest but continued the minor in foster care.
DISCUSSION
I
Appellant contends substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s order denying her services.
When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, even where the standard of proof in the trial court is clear and convincing, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence--that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value--to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) In making this determination we recognize that all conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and that issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. (In re Jason L., supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1214; In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 16.) The reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
At the disposition hearing, the court determines whether it is necessary to remove the child from the parents and whether reunification services should be provided. (§§ 361, subd. (c), 361.5.) The court may decline to provide services to a parent if specific circumstances are shown. (§ 361.5, subd. (b).) One of those circumstances, applicable here, is “[t]hat the parent . . . of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court’s attention . . . .” (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).)
Appellant’s statements to the early intervention specialist establish a history of substance abuse spanning 20 years, giving birth to two children who tested positive for drugs at birth, and continuing her drug use while pregnant. The minor was removed from appellant’s custody in 2004 and returned to her following her successful completion of court-ordered treatment only to be removed again when appellant returned to substance abuse. The evidence overwhelmingly established a history of extensive abusive and chronic use of drugs.
Within six months of the minor’s return after appellant completed treatment, there were allegations of appellant’s renewed substance abuse. Appellant admitted using cocaine two weeks prior to the minor’s removal and again on the day he was removed. This evidence of ongoing use prior to the filing of the petition belied her claim that she relapsed as a result of the stress of the dependency proceeding. (Karen S. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1010 [continued use after participation in treatment constitutes resistance to treatment].) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that appellant was described by section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13).
Having found appellant came within the provisions of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) the court could still order reunification services to appellant if, by clear and convincing evidence, the court found it was in the best interest of the minor to do so. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).) However, based on the evidence before the court, such a finding could not have been made. The maternal grandmother, not appellant, was the minor’s primary caretaker. Appellant admitted spending time with drug users and continued to use drugs after the minor was removed despite her pregnancy. Appellant minimized the effect her substance abuse had on her parenting and had demonstrated her inability to maintain long-term sobriety. The juvenile court did not err in denying services to appellant.
II
Appellant contends the court erred in failing to consider placing the minor with the maternal grandmother.
“In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative.” (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) The statute lists various factors to be considered including the safety of the home and whether the relative has a disability which would prevent the relative from exercising care and control over the minor. (Ibid.) However, inquiry into relative placement by the social worker does not “guarantee that the child will be placed” with any relative identified and considered. (Ibid.) “The statute acknowledges, then, that the court is not to presume that a child should be placed with a relative, but is to determine whether such a placement is appropriate, taking into account the suitability of the relative’s home and the best interest of the child.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 321.)
At the hearing, the juvenile court stated it had read and considered all the reports. In the report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the social worker evaluated the maternal grandmother as a possible placement for the minor. The maternal grandmother had health problems which could impact her ability to provide care and control of the young minor. Further, she was oblivious to the parents’ renewed substance abuse and said she knew nothing about drugs although the minor was previously removed from appellant for this reason and placed in the maternal grandmother’s care. The court did consider placing the minor with the maternal grandmother. However after evaluating the evidence in the report, the court properly concluded that it was not in the minor’s best interests to make such a placement. No error appears.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of disposition is affirmed.
We concur:
SIMS, Acting P.J., BUTZ, J.