From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laura O. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District.
Nov 21, 2003
H026333 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)

Opinion

No. H026333.

11-21-2003

LAURA O., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDRENS SERVICES, et al., Real Parties in Interest.


Laura O., the mother of the two children at issue here, files this petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B.) The juvenile court issued the challenged order after a contested 18-month review hearing. Mother now requests additional reunification services and return of the children to her care. Since we find no error or abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, we will deny the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 3, 2001, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (the Department) filed separate petitions as to the children Sarah (born September 1998) and Anthony (born March 2000), pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect]. The petitions, as subsequently amended, alleged that the children were placed into protective custody pursuant to a family court order after the court learned that mother violated a court order by allowing the childrens father, Anthony S., to move back into the home. The parents had a history of domestic violence perpetrated on the mother by the father in the presence of the children, and the parents had a history of violating no contact orders with each other and with other partners. Mother also had a history of remaining in at least three relationships with men who battered her, placing her children in danger of physical and emotional harm, and she had a history of mental health issues. The father also had a history of arrests and convictions on various criminal charges, was a registered narcotics offender, and was on parole for felony domestic violence against his former partner.

On December 14, 2001, after a contested hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations of the petitions, as amended, true and that the children were described by section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court also declared the children dependents of the court and ordered out-of-home placement with reunification services for both parents.

At the six-month review hearing, conducted on July 11, 2002, the juvenile court continued reunification services for mother and father. However, on July 23, 2002, father was arrested and charged with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant as a result of his grabbing mother and dragging her through the apartment by her hair. Mother had visible upper torso bruising, scuffed knees, and several bite marks on her body, and she had struck her head against the wall. At the 12-month review in January 2003, the juvenile court continued mothers reunification services, but it terminated fathers services.

In her 18-month review report, prepared in March 2003, the social worker recommended termination of mothers reunification services. The social worker reported that although mother indicated that she loved her children, it had become quite clear that she had a historical pattern of placing herself and her children at risk. Mother displayed a pattern of being involved repeatedly with violent men, and, even with support, information and knowledge about domestic violence and child abuse, mother chose to minimize and deny that their behavior had been detrimental to her and her children. Mother appeared to be gaining knowledge about domestic violence and its impact on her family, but she had not been able to internalize this information in such a way to help her stop interacting with her previous batterers.

The social worker also reported that it would be detrimental to return the children to mother because of her inability to maintain her own safety and the safety of the children, as evidenced by her ongoing choice to interact with the violent men in her life. Mother had made choices that indicated a lack of understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and its impact on the victim and on children. Mother also lacked understanding of the safety risk presented when interacting with or having relationships with the men who had been violent with her, and, to the contrary, mother continued to justify her interactions with these individuals. Although mother indicated that she would make different choices if her children were returned, there was no evidence that her pattern had changed or that she could provide a safe environment for herself or for her children that was free from the individuals that had placed her and the children continuously at risk. In the meantime, the children were residing in the home of the maternal grandmother and step-grandfather and appeared to be doing well, and father remained incarcerated for his physical abuse of mother.

In an addendum report for the 18-month review hearing, prepared in May 2003, the social worker reported that father had been released from custody but was arrested for violating his conditions of parole on April 15, 2003. The alleged violations included driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, violation of a special condition of parole by having contact with a victim, and other vehicle code violations. At the time of the arrest, father was in the company of mother despite a special condition of parole that prohibited contact with mother due to the history of domestic violence. The social worker also reported that both mother and father knew that the no contact provision was a condition of fathers parole, that mother was extremely defensive about the matter, and that the social worker continued to recommend termination of mothers reunification services.

In another addendum report, prepared in August 2003, the social worker reported that she had received a report from the facilitator of mothers child abuse treatment program in which the facilitator expressed concerns regarding mothers participation in the program. According to the facilitator, mothers mental health appeared to be deteriorating, she did not accept responsibility for the harm her actions caused the children, and she continued to defend father. Mother also had been disruptive in recent classes, continued to argue her case in class, and was placed on notice to correct her behavior or be terminated from the program.

The juvenile court conducted the contested 18-month review hearing on August 15, 2003. At the contested hearing, the social worker testified regarding mothers participation in reunification services. The social worker also testified that she did not believe the children could be safely returned to mother and that she continued to recommend termination of mothers reunification services.

At the conclusion of the contested hearing, the juvenile court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Department, terminated mothers reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 9, 2003.

DISCUSSION

Mother, who was represented by counsel in the juvenile court but is representing herself in this writ proceeding, does not raise any cognizable legal arguments. Mother does not cite any legal authority and does not point to any purported errors committed by the juvenile court at the contested 18-month review hearing. Instead, mother generally asserts that section 300 does not apply, that her children have never been abused by anyone, including herself, and that she will do whatever it takes to keep her children safe.

Mothers assertion that section 300 does not apply is without merit. The juvenile court found that the children came within the provisions of section 300 when the juvenile court found the allegations of the amended petitions true at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in December 2001. The jurisdictional and dispositional orders are long since final. Hence, mother has waived the opportunity to complain that the jurisdictional findings and original dispositional order were erroneous. (See, Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811.)

Mothers remaining assertions do not provide any basis for overturning the juvenile courts decision to set a section 366.26 hearing, including the juvenile courts determination that return of the children to mothers care would create a substantial risk of detriment to their well-being and to terminate mothers reunification services. The writ procedure outlined in section 366.26, subdivision (l) and implemented in rule 39.1B of the California Rules of Court enables a party to obtain expeditious review of the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a section 366.26 hearing. (Steve J. v. Superior Court , supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 811.) It is a general principle of appellate practice that a judgment or order of a lower court is presumed correct and that error by the lower court must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, p. 394.) Here, mother does not point to any error committed by the juvenile court in ordering the section 366.26 hearing after conducting the contested 18-month review hearing. As a reviewing court, we must presume that the juvenile courts order was correct.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.

WE CONCUR: WUNDERLICH, J., MIHARA, J. --------------- Notes: Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.


Summaries of

Laura O. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District.
Nov 21, 2003
H026333 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)
Case details for

Laura O. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Case Details

Full title:LAURA O., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District.

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

H026333 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)