Opinion
F042955.
7-17-2003
LORI C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest.
Paula T. Abbiss, for Petitioner. No appearance, for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and John A. Rozum, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) of respondent courts order that a section 366.26 hearing be held on August 21, 2003, as to her daughter S. She contends the court erred in terminating reunification services. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In August 2002, S. and her half-brothers, then seven-year-old Jacob and three-year-old Joseph, were removed from petitioners custody after S. was born positive for methamphetamine. Petitioner admitted a 19-year history of methamphetamine use beginning at the age of 14. She also drank alcohol periodically. Consequently, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) filed a dependency petition on the childrens behalf, alleging that petitioners substance abuse placed her children at substantial risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Petitioner admitted the allegations and the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction and ordered a reunification plan that included successful completion of residential drug treatment. The children were placed in foster care; Jacob and Joseph together in one foster home and S. in another.
According to the agency in its report prepared for the April 24, 2003, six-month review hearing petitioner, regularly visited with the children. She was actively engaged with them and expressed interest in their well being. In addition, she completed residential drug treatment, as well as all other case plan requirements. However, in order to successfully complete substance abuse treatment, petitioner also had to complete an eight-month aftercare program. In light of her progress, the agency recommended the court terminate dependency jurisdiction and return the children to petitioners custody.
However, the agency changed its recommendation after petitioner was terminated from the aftercare program on April 10, 2003, for rude behavior and then two days later caused an automobile accident while driving under the influence of alcohol.
At the contested six-month review hearing, petitioner admitted her error in judgment; however, she argued she has substantially complied with her case plan. Her counsel informed the court she was participating in aftercare and was willing to complete another inpatient program if necessary. The court terminated reunification services as to S. and ordered continued services for Jacob and Joshua.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends the court erred in finding she failed to make regular and substantive progress in her case plan and that reunification in the next six months was unlikely. At the six-month review hearing, the court may 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, that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered plan. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that such a child may be returned to his or her parent within six months or that reasonable services were not provided, the court must continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing. (Ibid.) On review, we will affirm a juvenile courts order terminating reunification services if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 316.)
In this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts findings. While petitioner completed many of the elements of her case plan, she did not make substantive progress in the most critical part of her case plan, i.e. substance abuse treatment. Fresh out of inpatient treatment, she relapsed. As a result, she lost ground and had to repeat the eight-month aftercare program. Therefore, not only did she not make substantive progress in her case plan, but she could not have completed the required eight-month aftercare program in another six months of services. We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.