Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-01779
Ruvolo, P. J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Alicia A. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court following a combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. She claims she did not receive proper notice of the hearing, and that it was error to require her participation in a domestic violence prevention program as part of her reunification plan. We affirm.
II.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2006, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging a failure to protect the minor, J. A., due to her parents’ history of substance abuse and inability to provide adequate shelter. Following a hearing on October 3, attended by both Mother and the minor’s father (Father), the court ordered the minor detained. On that date, Mother completed a “Notification of Mailing Address” form.
All further undesignated dates are in 2006.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother and her attorney were present at jurisdictional hearings on October 6th, 13th and 20th. At a November 15th jurisdictional hearing, attended only by counsel for the minor and Father, the court continued the hearing until December 6th. The Contra Costa County Deputy Clerk served notice by mail on Mother at the address provided on the “Notification of Mailing Address” form, as well as to her attorney. Both Mother and her attorney were present at the December 6th detention hearing, at which the court ordered that the minor continue to be detained.
Mother was present at the December 20th jurisdictional hearing on the first amended petition, at which the matter was continued until January 17, 2007. Mother did not appear on that date, or on the continued hearing date of January 26, 2007. Mother’s attorney appeared, and the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing was continued to March 2, 2007.
Mother was not present at the March 2, 2007 hearing. Her attorney appeared, and stated: “[Mother] is not present this afternoon. So I am asking the Court to continue the case so she can appear.” No reason was give for Mother’s failure to appear. The Bureau submitted documentation to the court that it had served notice of the March 2, 2007 jurisdiction/disposition hearing on Mother by certified mail to the address she had provided on the “Notification of Mailing Address” form, but that it had been returned to the Bureau as unclaimed. The court denied the motion for continuance.
The Bureau submitted a report for the hearing in which the social worker indicated that Mother had a history of seven prior referrals since 1994, some relating to a sibling of the minor. According to the report, the Bureau received two referrals regarding Mother in 2002. In the first one, Mother was reportedly abusing drugs, leaving the minor and her sibling home alone, and physically abusing the minor’s sibling. The second referral “was the result of an arrest of [Mother] for battery of [the minor’s] father . . . in a domestic dispute,” which the minor witnessed. The minor reportedly was distraught after witnessing the altercation. In September 2002, the family court ordered that both Mother and Father participate in a domestic violence class. In 2004, the Bureau received another referral regarding the minor and her sibling, alleging general neglect.
In September 2006, Father had custody of the minor pursuant to a family court order. Mother and Father had a “disagreement,” and Mother took the minor from her Father’s custody on September 24, 2006, resulting in a referral to the Bureau. Father called the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department on September 28, 2006, to request a health and safety check on the minor.
Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Deputy Melissa Wilhelm was dispatched to Mother’s home. She reported finding the minor with an adult caretaker at the home, which was a “detached addition to the main house.” There were three small rooms, approximately 10-by-10 feet, separated by curtains. The home was cluttered and dirty, with piles of dirty plates and rotting food. A camping stove was apparently being used to cook. The home contained knives and pornography readily accessible to the minor. The glass shower door in the bathroom area had the words “bitch let me watch you” written on it. Deputy Wilhelm did not deem the residence “acceptable for child habitation,” and made a referral to the Bureau, which then removed the minor.
The report also indicated that Mother had a history of substance abuse. On October 30, 2006, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, and admitted to the social worker that she had “relapsed.” In the past, Mother had become “physically belligerent” to adult relatives when under the influence.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared the minor a dependant, and ordered the minor placed out of her parents’ custody. The court approved the reunification plan, which included the “Service Objective” that Mother “[a]ttend and demonstrate progress in a County Certified Domestic Violence Prevention Plan.” The reunification plan listed, under “Client Responsibilities,” that Mother “will refrain from further instances of domestic violence.”
Mother filed this timely appeal.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Notice of Hearing
Mother argues that the Bureau “did not provide [her] with sufficient notice of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on March 2, 2007.” She maintains that “the notice was not served on her as indicated by the fact that there was no return receipt for the notice that had been sent to her by certified mail.”
At the outset, we note that mother’s attorney, who was present at the March 2nd hearing, did not raise the issue of lack of notice. She sought a continuance, stating only that “[Mother] is not present.” “Because defective notice and the consequences flowing from it may easily be corrected if promptly raised in the juvenile court, [a parent] forfeits[s] the right to raise these issues on appeal” if he or she has failed to raise them in the juvenile court. (In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209.)
Section 291 sets forth the notice requirements. “(1) If the child is detained and the persons required to be noticed are not present at the initial petition hearing, they shall be noticed by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested. [¶] (2) If the child is detained and the persons required to be noticed are present at the initial petition hearing, they shall be noticed by personal service or by first-class mail.” (§ 291, subd. (e)(1), (2).) Here, Mother appeared at the initial petition hearing, and completed the “Notification of Mailing Address” form. Accordingly, the Bureau could have served Mother by first-class mail rather than certified mail, return receipt requested.
Mother does not maintain that the Bureau did not serve notice on her as prescribed by statute, only that there is no evidence she received it. The evidence, which Mother does not dispute, demonstrated that the notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mother at the address she provided on the “Notification of Mailing Address” form. Mother, for whatever reason, simply did not sign the return receipt. The fact that Mother did not sign the acknowledgement of receipt of the letter does not, as Mother claims without citation, make the presumption of Evidence Code section 641 inapplicable. Under Evidence Code section 641, the trial court could presume the notice was “received in the ordinary course of mail.” (Evid. Code, § 641.) Even had Mother raised the issue below, the evidence showed that the Bureau gave Mother adequate notice, as required by section 291.
B. Domestic Violence Prevention
Mother argues that the requirement of the reunification plan that she “participate in a domestic violence program” is unjustified because domestic violence was not one of the allegations in the petition and “[e]xcept for an alleged incident in 2002 . . . there was no evidence that [the minor] had been the victim of domestic violence.”
“In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.]” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) A reunification plan must be specifically tailored to fit the circumstances of each family (In re Michael S. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1448, 1458), and must be designed to eliminate those conditions which led to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding (In re Rebecca H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 825). “The objective of the plan must be to provide services to facilitate ‘the resumption of a normal family relationship . . .’ [citation].” (In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1790, citing In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 414.)
Here, it is undisputed that Mother had a prior arrest for domestic violence against Father in 2002. Though there is no record of a conviction, the evidence showed that she was “physically belligerent” in the past when under the influence of drugs.
Mother does not dispute that the domestic violence took place, but asserts it was error to order the domestic violence prevention requirement of the reunification plan because there was no evidence the minor had been the victim. We disagree. As other courts have recognized “domestic violence in the same household where children are living is neglect . . . .” (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194.) The evidence showed that the minor had witnessed Mother committing an act of domestic violence on Father and was “distraught.” The minor, though not physically a victim of the domestic violence, was victimized emotionally.
We also disagree with Mother’s contention that this violence was too distant in time to support a domestic violence component of the reunification plan. There was no evidence of any change in Mother’s behavior, and Mother admitted that she had “relapsed” and was taking methamphetamine. Given these circumstances, substantial evidence support’s the court’s order imposing the domestic violence component of the reunification plan.
We note that, at the hearing, the social worker was questioned about whether there was a report that three men at Mother’s home threatened Father. The social worker’s response was unclear, but does not confirm that incident.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional order is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Sepulveda, J.