From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

M.L. v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 16, 2012
E055020 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

E055020 Super.Ct.No. SWJ-010264

02-16-2012

M.L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Parties in Interest.

Charles A. Casey for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Michael J. Rushton, Judge. Petition denied.

Charles A. Casey for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner M.L. is the mother (mother) of four-year-old B.M., who is the subject of these juvenile dependency proceedings. In this writ petition, mother asks us to reverse the juvenile court's orders of November 14, 2011, terminating her reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, at which the juvenile court will consider whether to terminate mother's parental rights to B.M. Specifically, mother argues the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services because she had made significant progress in her case plan and in resolving the problems that led to B.M.'s removal, and there was a substantial probability that B.M. could be returned to mother within the 18-month time frame after removal. As discussed below, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm its rulings.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On August 11, 2010, the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a petition under section 300 alleging B.M. was in danger because mother and B.M.'s father abused controlled substances and because mother was involved in a domestically violent relationship with her boyfriend. Mother had been arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance on August 9, while having B.M. in her care.

At the detention hearing held on August 12, 2010, the juvenile court detained B.M. and placed her with nonrelated extended family members. The court ordered mother to participate in alcohol and drug testing, as well as parenting education, substance abuse treatment, and counseling. The court authorized mother to have supervised visits with B.M. twice a week.

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing held on October 6, 2010, the juvenile court sustained allegations in an amended section 300 petition, authorized family reunification services, ordered the child to be placed with her paternal grandparents, and authorized the parents to have separate overnight visits with B.M., to be supervised by relatives. The court adopted the case plan prepared by DPSS, requiring mother to participate in counseling, parenting and domestic violence programs, and substance abuse treatment and testing.

In the report prepared for the six-month review hearing held on April 6, 2011, DPSS recommended terminating reunification services for mother. This is because she had missed two drug tests and provided one diluted urine sample, had not participated in any parenting education or domestic violence services, and had attended only three of six scheduled counseling sessions. Mother was participating in substance abuse treatment.

In the 12-month status review report filed September 21, 2011, DPSS recommended reunification services be terminated. Mother had completed counseling, parenting education and domestic violence services. She also continued to participate regularly in substance abuse treatment. However, she had relapsed and tested positive for marijuana on June 2, July 29, and August 3, 2011. In addition, it appeared that mother had reestablished contact with her prior abusive boyfriend, initially confirming to the social worker the truth of reports from her family members, then stating that she had falsely admitted to such contact to shut up the social worker.

In an addendum report filed November 9, 2011, DPSS repeated its recommendation that reunification services be terminated. On November 2, 2011, mother failed to appear for an on-demand drug test. Mother claimed that she had fallen asleep at home after a stressful visit with B.M. (during which the social worker had told mother she needed to complete the on-demand drug test that day) and had not woken up in time to get to the testing location. Mother had also failed to drug test on October 20, 2011. The social worker had stressed to mother the importance of participating in drug testing and that a missed drug test would be considered a positive drug test.

The 12-month review hearing was held on November 14, 2011. Mother offered stipulated testimony that she missed the drug test on October 20 because she had car problems on her way to the test. Mother claimed she had called the Automobile Club for assistance, but did not provide any written confirmation. Mother also provided her own stipulated testimony and that of her roommate that mother missed the November 2 drug test because mother had gone home to take a nap that day after an unsuccessful visit with B.M. and asked the roommate to wake her in time for the drug test. The roommate got busy and neglected to wake mother in time. At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services for both parents and set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing for March 13, 2012. In making its rulings, the court found that "the extent of progress made by the mother towards alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement has been—I'm not going to say minimal. It's been unsatisfactory in that the mother failed to make substantive progress or complete the court-ordered case plan."

This writ petition followed.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing because she had made significant progress in her case plan and in resolving the problems that led to B.M.'s removal, and there was a substantial probability that B.M. could be returned to mother within the 18-month time frame after removal.

At the time of the 12-month status review hearing, the court may continue the case and the provision of reunification services for another period of up to six months until another permanency review hearing, provided that the last hearing must occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of the child's parent or guardian. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) This subdivision also provides that "[t]he court shall continue the case 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 . . . and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time . . . ." (Ibid.) In order to find there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court must find: "(A) That the parent . . . has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child. [¶] (B) That the parent . . . has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child's removal from the home. [¶] (C) The parent . . . has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child's safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs." (Ibid.)

On appeal, we review the juvenile court's discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion. (See In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

Here, while Mother did maintain contact and regularly visit with B.M., her continued struggle with drug abuse has prevented her from significantly improving her ability to complete a treatment plan and safely parent B.M. or to resolve the problems that led DPSS to remove B.M. from mother's home. Mother failed to conquer her 10-year drug problem, which is an essential prerequisite to safely parenting B.M. and was a major reason that B.M. was removed from mother's home. Mother had positive drug tests in June, July, and August 2011, and had failed to test in October and November. That was after the juvenile court had already given mother a second chance for reunification services at the six-month review hearing, despite her having missed two drug tests and providing a diluted urine sample during that reporting period. Although mother had participated regularly in substance abuse treatment, the multiple positive and missed drug tests show that she failed to benefit enough to establish that she could complete the treatment plan and provide a safe home for B.M. by the 18-month mark, a mere three months after the November 11, 2011 review hearing. Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider terminating her parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's orders are affirmed. The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.
We concur:

RICHLI

J.

MILLER

J.


Summaries of

M.L. v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 16, 2012
E055020 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

M.L. v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:M.L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

E055020 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)