Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Barbara County Super. Ct. Nos. J-1285786, J-1285787, James Herman, Judge
Vanessa V., in pro per, Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, County of Santa Barbara, Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Vanessa M. (mother) petitions for extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services for her twin children, Jazmine R. and Juan R., and setting a permanency planning hearing after the court sustained a Welfare & Institutions Code section 387 amended supplemental petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) We deny the petition for extraordinary writ relief.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Facts and Procedural History
On December 26, 2008, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the three-year-old twins. (§ 300, subd. (b) & (g).) The petition alleged that mother and the children's father had failed to protect and provide for the support of the children due to physical abuse, chronic substance abuse, and on going domestic violence in the home.
Father had a violent history that included battery, corporal injury to a spouse, and sex crimes against children. Before the petition was filed, father violated a restraining order and was incarcerated for domestic violence. Mother minimized the domestic violence and told the case worker that she would most likely continue her relationship with father. CWS reported that mother had a history of substance abuse and violent behavior and a criminal record for substance abuse, burglary, grand theft, receiving stolen property, shoplifting, battery, and domestic violence. Although the family participated in voluntary services in 2007, the services were not effective in preventing or eliminating the need for removal of the children.
At a March 16, 2009 combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the trial court declared the children dependents of the court and ordered reunification services. Mother was ordered to undergo individual counseling to address safe parenting issues, complete a one-on-one parenting education program, attend twelve-step meetings, and submit to random drug tests twice a week.
At the September 14, 2009 six-month review hearing, mother had received twelve months of family reunification services but still did not have suitable housing.
The children were returned to mother and father at the twelve month review hearing on March 8, 2010.
On May 7, 2010, a section 387 supplemental petition was filed alleging that father sexually molested the children's half-sister, Moriah. Six-year-old Moriah reported that the children's father vaginally penetrated her with his finger, tongue, and penis during home visits. Moriah also reported that her half-brother, Juan, had orally copulated her. The supplemental petition alleged that mother, on May 5, 2010, admitted she was aware of the sexual abuse allegations but did not mention it to case worker Dawn Manalo during an April 30, 2010 home visit. CWS recommended that the children be removed, that family services be terminated, and that the trial court set the matter for a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26).
At a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, evidence was received that mother, on April 29, 2010, told Moriah's stepmother that Moriah was sexually acting out with Juan during overnight visits. Mother said that Moriah and Juan got in trouble for "doing nasty stuff" and that mother had "seen them doing this." On Easter Sunday, three weeks earlier, Juan's twin sister Jazmine told mother that Moriah and Juan "were under the covers" and Juan "was licking Moriah's privates."
On May 6, 2010, case worker Manalo asked mother why she did not report the sexual abuse during the April 30, 2010 in-home visit. Mother replied, "I don't know, I was nervous and concerned.... I'm sure you already knew."
Discussion
CWS argues that the writ petition should be denied because it lacks a memorandum of points and authorities, supporting documents, and argument with citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.452(a)(2)& (b).) We agree. (See e.g., Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158 [facially inadequate petition summarily denied].) The memorandum "must, at a minimum, adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.)
On the merits, the evidence clearly supports the trial court's findings and disposition order. Mother claims that the case worker lied but in a sufficiency of the evidence appeal we are precluded from reweighing the evidence, resolving evidentiary conflicts, or evaluating the credibility of witnesses. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
The evidence shows that mother was aware of the sexual abuse and did not promptly report it. Mother was still living with father and did not believe the children or Moriah were in danger of being molested. Although mother planned to move the children to Los Angeles and live with the maternal grandfather, it would be highly detrimental to the children.
Case worker Dawn Manalo testified that CWS did not approve the placement because a 1997 police report contained allegations that grandfather had sexually abused mother's step-sister. The police report stated that mother saw grandfather expose himself and attempt to rub his penis on the step-sister's face. Mother told the police she did not want grandfather prosecuted.
Manalo testified that the police report was a concern because "[t]he children have been exposed to a lot of domestic violence, neglect, and there's been sexual acting out between [the children]. To think that they would be placed in [grandfather's] home where something like this had occurred is very concerning to me as a social worker."
Doctor Anna Kokotovic, former director of Calm Child Abuse Listening and Mediation Services, opined that mother could not provide a safe and supportive home for the children. Mother had a long history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect, and the physical and emotional abuse allegations were so serious that the children were removed in January 2009.
Doctor Kokotovic testified that mother had received extensive services and was still living with father. When Moriah reported the sexual abuse, mother "stood up for [father], rather than reporting this to C.W.S. or law enforcement and taking steps to protect her daughter." Mother "minimized the [charges] and made excuses, not believing the daughter who is reporting to her that something very serious was happening...."
The trial court found that, despite 18 months of services, it was unlikely that mother would sever her relationship with father or protect and provide the children a safe home. "[Y]ou have to look at this in context. Not just the context specifically of sexual abuse, but with [the] broader context of corporal abuse, physical abuse, neglect, the overall dynamic that's existed within this family that's brought this case to the attention of the courts, including the sexualized behavior of these children. I can't ignore the [1997] police report indicating that [mother], herself, was a witness to [grandfather] molesting a sister or step sister. [¶]... [¶] [M]other, at this point, is only reluctantly stating that she is going to ask the father to leave, and in the alternative would look at [grandfather's] home as a place for her children to be. It's incredible to me that, at this point in time, ... she is still ambivalent about choosing between her live-in boyfriend [i.e., father] and her children [and] her child Moriah."
Mother makes no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in removing the children from her custody, terminating family maintenance services, or setting the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166-167.) Nor did the trial court err in ordering once-a-month supervised visitation. (In re Donnovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476.) A parent has no right to a visitation order that jeopardizes the safety of the child. (§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(B); Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 692, 699.)
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.