Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kenneth C. Twisselman, II, Judge. Super. Ct. No. JD113072
Connie Giannantonio, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
OPINION
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court, issued at a contested six-month review hearing, terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter T. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In October 2006, the Department of Human Services (department) received a referral that petitioner and then one-year-old T. were living in a motel room with petitioner’s boyfriend F. who was using crystal methamphetamine and selling drugs from the motel room. The reporting party also alleged that petitioner blew marijuana smoke in T.’s face as a means to control her and gave her strong beer to drink. As a result of this referral, voluntary maintenance services were initiated. However, over the next several months, petitioner continued to neglect T. She used cocaine, moved T. from motel to motel, and exposed her to men with significant drug and criminal backgrounds. In addition, petitioner had medication for but neglected to treat T.’s dry scalp. As a result, T.’s scalp was covered with sores, which opened when she cried causing blood to run down her face.
In January 2007, the department took T. into protective custody after petitioner left T. with petitioner’s roommate for several days without making provision for her care. The department filed a dependency petition alleging petitioner placed T. at risk of harm by her drug use and negligent failure to provide T. adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment.
The juvenile court ordered T. detained pursuant to the petition and found the allegations true. At the dispositional hearing in April 2007, the juvenile court ordered T. removed from petitioner’s custody and ordered petitioner to complete substance abuse treatment and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered weekly visitation.
Over the next five months, petitioner failed twice to complete drug treatment. She was discharged from a treatment facility in April 2007 for nonattendance. She enrolled again in June and was discharged in August, again for nonattendance. However, during this same timeframe, she tested negative for drug use, regularly visited T. and, on her own volition, completed 72 hours of parenting instruction. Nevertheless, the department recommended the court terminate reunification services at the six-month review hearing.
In September 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing. Through her attorney, petitioner submitted on the department’s report but argued for T.’s return or continued services based on her negative drug screens. Following argument, the court found petitioner failed to participate regularly in drug treatment. The court further found it would be detrimental to return T. to petitioner’s custody and there was not a substantial probability T. could be returned to petitioner’s custody by the 12-month review hearing. Consequently, the court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan for T. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims the juvenile court erred in finding she failed to regularly participate in and make substantive progress in her court-ordered services. Specifically, she cites evidence she tested negative for drugs, completed parenting instruction, and properly cared for T. during visitation. Further, because the court’s finding was error, she argues, its decisions not to return T. to her custody or alternatively, not to continue services were also error. We disagree.
At the six-month review hearing, the court must return the child to parental custody unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) Failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs is prima facie evidence that return of the child would be detrimental. (Ibid.) Further, the court may terminate reunification services and schedule a permanency planning hearing where the child, on the date of removal, was under the age of three years and the court further finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the parent failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. (Ibid.)
On review, we apply the substantial evidence standard. (Sheila S. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872, 880-881.) Under a substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the juvenile court and, we review the record in the light most favorable to support the court’s determinations. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) In this case, petitioner was ordered, as part of her reunification plan, to participate in drug treatment. Petitioner enrolled in a treatment program twice and twice failed to attend. Her decision not to attend can only be viewed as a failure to participate in court-ordered treatment. Moreover, it is not as though drug treatment was a minor aspect of petitioner’s overall plan for reunification. On the contrary, because her drug abuse was a major contributing factor in her negligent abuse of T., drug treatment was a key component of her reunification plan. Therefore, by refusing to participate in drug treatment, petitioner posed a continuing risk of harm to A. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding it would be detrimental to return T. to her custody.
The same reasoning supports the juvenile court’s order terminating petitioner’s reunification services after six months. Petitioner’s untreated drug abuse evidences not only failure to generally comply with the reunification plan but also to make substantive progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating T.’s removal. In light of T.’s age at removal and petitioner’s lack of progress, we conclude the juvenile court acted properly in terminating petitioner’s services and proceeding to permanency planning.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.