Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ. Debra L. Losnick, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Super. Ct. No. CK65486
Julia C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
MALLANO, Acting P. J.
By petition for extraordinary writ, Julia C. (Mother) challenges a December 6, 2007 order terminating family reunification services with respect to her daughter, S.R., born in March 2006, and setting a permanency planning hearing. Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order, we deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
S.R. was born with gastroschisis, a congenital abdominal wall defect in which her intestines developed outside her abdomen. She underwent numerous surgeries, was fed through a tube in her stomach, and remained in the hospital until November 2006.
S.R. was detained at the hospital in October 2006 after the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that Mother used methamphetamine and marijuana when she was pregnant with S.R. Mother, who was then 20 years old, began using drugs when she was 13; she tested positive for marijuana on October 11, 2006. Hospital staff had concerns about Mother’s ability to care for S.R. because Mother needed coaxing to visit her daughter on a consistent basis, admitted to drug use, and failed to attend a scheduled medical training session for S.R.’s care. Both Mother and George R. (Father) had criminal histories involving drug related charges and Father was on probation.
Father has not challenged the order setting a permanency planning hearing. Father failed to contact DCFS from May 2007 until November 2007, when he was located in custody in the Los Angeles County jail.
In November 2006, S.R. was discharged from the hospital and placed in foster care through the medical placement unit. On November 30, 2006, the juvenile court sustained a petition declaring that S.R. was a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), based on the parents’ history of substance abuse. In January 2007, DCFS reported that the parents visited S.R. twice a week. Mother was not drug testing and was not participating in any treatment programs, but was on the waiting list for two programs.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In March 2007, the parents successfully completed medical training for the care of S.R., including operation and cleaning of a gastrostomy tube machine. The parents also were provided referrals for random drug testing and outpatient drug programs. Mother visited S.R. on her birthday in March 2007, and then once in April and once in May 2007.
After a contested disposition hearing on May 15, 2007, the juvenile court ordered S.R. removed from parental custody and afforded the parents monitored visitation and family reunification services. Mother was ordered to attend a drug rehabilitation program with weekly random testing, parent education, and individual counseling.
In July 2007, S.R.’s feeding tube was removed and she was placed on a pureed food diet. In August 2007, Mother was not in compliance with the case plan. Although she had begun a drug rehabilitation program in March 2007, she was dropped from the program in April 2007 for poor attendance. From May to August 2007, DCFS provided Mother referrals for drug treatment programs and set up three assessment appointments for her, Mother having failed to attend the first two scheduled appointments. Mother missed all of her random drug tests between March and November 2007. After Mother’s May 2007 visit, she did not attempt to visit her daughter until November 11, 2007, but during that period Mother would call the foster mother every few weeks to inquire about S.R.
The maternal grandmother visited S.R. regularly and expressed an interest in providing a permanent home for S.R. But DCFS did not recommend placement with the maternal grandmother it its October 2007 report because remodeling of her home made it an unsafe environment and one of her adult sons had a criminal record involving a charge of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under age 14, and his background was not yet cleared.
At a November 7, 2007 contested six-month review hearing, the court ordered DCFS to provide Mother with in-patient drug program referrals forthwith and continued the hearing to December 6, 2007.
DCFS’s December 6, 2007 report recommended terminating reunification services, as the parents had received referrals but had not complied with the case plan. At the December 6, 2007 hearing, Mother’s counsel informed the court that Mother had started parenting classes two days before, on December 4, 2007, and was scheduled to begin a drug treatment program on December 7, 2007. The court found that reasonable services had been provided, the parents were not in full compliance with the case plan, and there was no reasonable probability S.R. would be returned to parental custody in six months. The court further stated, “I cannot find today there is a likelihood of further reunification services.” The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for February 5, 2008.
DCFS’s response, filed on January 18, 2008, does not indicate whether the section 366.26 hearing remained scheduled for February 5, 2008. Our record does not contain any request for a stay of the February 5, 2008 hearing.
Mother, in propria persona, filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition and a petition for extraordinary writ. Her petition requests that the order setting the section 366.26 hearing be vacated and that reunification services be continued. But Mother offered no facts or grounds in support of her petition and checked the box on the petition stating that “[b]ecause of exigent circumstances, supporting documents are not attached,” providing no explanation. No points and authorities were attached to her petition. DCFS filed a response contending that substantial evidence supports the order terminating reunification services.
DISCUSSION
Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2) provides: “For a child who, on the date of initial removal from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, was under the age of three years, court-ordered services shall not exceed a period of six months from the date the child entered foster care.” Section 366.21, subdivision (e) provides: “If the child was under the age of three years on the date of the initial removal . . ., and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.”
“Construed together, sections 361.5, subdivision (a)(2) and 366.21, subdivision (e) provide the court with the option to terminate reunification services after six months when a parent of a minor under the age of three has ‘made little or no progress in [his or her] service plan[ ] and the prognosis for overcoming the problems leading to the child’s dependency is bleak.’ [Citation.]” (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 64.)
“Prior to setting a section 366.26 hearing, a court must determine, inter alia, that the dependent [child] will suffer detriment if returned to the physical custody of the parent. (§ 366.21.) Our review of this determination is . . . a review of the record for substantial evidence in support of the finding.” (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 (Angela S.).) “A parent’s failure to participate regularly in court-ordered treatment programs constitutes prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental.” (Ibid.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that S.R. will suffer detriment if returned to Mother. The record shows that Mother failed to participate in court-ordered drug treatment and random drug testing. Mother tested positive for drugs in October 2006, and failed to drug test from April to December 2007. Although Mother briefly participated in a drug treatment program in March 2007, she was dropped from the program in April 2007 for poor attendance. There was no evidence establishing that Mother was drug testing and clean and sober at the time of the December 6, 2007 hearing. Thus, substantial evidence supports the finding of detriment as well as the finding that it was not reasonably probable that S.R. would be returned to Mother’s custody in six months.
“[W]ith regard to the sufficiency of reunification services, our sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided or offered.” (Angela S., supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 762.) We review the evidence in the light most favorable to DCFS and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the order terminating reunification services. (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.)
The record shows that DCFS provided Mother with numerous referrals. Mother simply failed to avail herself of the referrals and the programs in a timely manner. She did not enroll in parenting classes until two days before the December 6, 2007 hearing and she delayed participation in a drug treatment program from April to December 7, 2007. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that reasonable services had been offered. As noted, substantial evidence also supports the finding that reunification was unlikely. The court properly terminated reunification services and scheduled a permanency planning hearing.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.