Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Imperial County Super. Ct. No. JJP01690
NARES, J.
Proceedings for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Juan Ulloa, Judge. Petition denied, request for stay denied.
Mayra M. petitions for writ review of juvenile court orders terminating her reunification services regarding her daughter, Aimee M., and referring the matter to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. She contends the court erred by terminating her reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Intuitions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2007, the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) petitioned on behalf of infant Aimee M. under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) because there were concerns about Mayra's severe psychotic behaviors. The social worker reported Mayra had been diagnosed with manic depression since high school and admitted not taking the medication that was prescribed for her. Mayra also admitted she had anger problems and used methamphetamine. The social worker was concerned about Mayra's remarks that her baby was going to die. The court order Aimee detained.
Mayra pleaded no contest to allegations in the petition under section 300, subdivision (b) that Aimee was at risk because Mayra had been diagnosed with acute paranoia and depression and suffers from psychological difficulties. At the jurisdictional hearing on June 13, 2007, the court found the allegations true and assumed jurisdiction.
On August 13, 2007, the court declared Aimee a dependent child, removed her from Mayra's custody and ordered her placed in foster care. The court ordered reunification services for Mayra, including participation in a parenting class, therapy, and an anger management course; submission to a psychological evaluation; and compliance with a course of prescribed psychotropic medication.
In a report dated November 30, 2007, the social worker reported Mayra was not taking her medications consistently, she had been hospitalized on July 19 as a danger to herself or others, and her cooperation with the social worker was unpredictable. During a drug test Mayra had written inappropriate comments on the information form. Mayra's case manager at Behavioral Health Adult Services said she had worked with Mayra for years and Mayra appeared to be in a worse condition than she had ever seen her. Mayra's new case manager said Mayra was struggling and not taking her medication. Mayra was attending anger management classes, but the facilitator said her progress was problematic. Her doctor requested a public assistance monitor for her because she was not able to pay her rent. The social worker reported Mayra did not always appear for scheduled visitation and acted inappropriately during visits.
At the six-month review hearing on January 16, 2008, the court accepted documentation showing Mayra had attended 18 of 26 parenting classes and received a certificate of attendance. After hearing argument from counsel, the court found Mayra had made substantial, but not sufficient progress, terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Mayra petitions for review of the court's orders. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) This court issued an order to show cause, the Agency responded and the parties waived oral argument.
DISCUSSION
Mayra contends the court erred by terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing after finding she had made substantial, but insufficient progress.
A
Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2) provides:
"Child welfare services, when provided, shall be provided as follows: [¶] 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 . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
"The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or guardian."
Under section 366.21, subdivision (e), if a child is under the age of three years on the date of removal and the court finds that the parent failed to make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment, the court may schedule a section 366.26 hearing unless the court finds a substantial probability of return within six months or that reasonable services were not provided. (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 63.)
A reviewing court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) Determinations of credibility of witnesses and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence are for the trier of fact. (In re Tanis H. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1226-1227.) "[W]e must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court [citation], and we must also '. . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114, quoting In re Biggs (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 340.) The appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
B
Under the required standard of review, we hold that substantial evidence supports the court's findings and orders. Mayra submitted documentation showing she had attended 18 of 26 anger management classes. However, by the time of the hearing, her visits with Aimee had been suspended because of her actions during visits. The social worker said Mayra sometimes was cooperative and at other times was uncooperative and antagonistic. During the dependency period, Mayra had been hospitalized for a Penal Code section 5150 evaluation. The social worker reported she was not taking her prescribed medications consistently. Her case manager at Behavioral Health said Mayra was in the worst condition she had ever seen her. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that, although Mayra had participated in her reunification plan, her progress was inadequate to allow the court to extend services for an additional six months. The court did not err in finding there was not a substantial probability of return with six more months of services, in terminating services, and in setting a section 366.26 hearing.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.
WE CONCUR:HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., HALLER, J.