Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 07CEJ300190-1
N.A., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Briggs, Interim County Counsel and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from a contested 12-month review hearing at which the juvenile court terminated her reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her children M.V., H.V., O.H. and N.H. 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 July 2007, the social services department (department) took then 10-year-old M.V., 8-year-old H.V., 2-year-old O.H. and 10-month-old N.H. into protective custody after they were found at night alone playing at a school. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children after sustaining allegations petitioner exposed them to ongoing domestic violence and left them alone while she worked. At the dispositional hearing in December 2007, the court ordered petitioner to participate in parenting classes, substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence evaluations, and recommended treatment and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered the children to participate in mental health assessments and recommended treatment.
In May 2008, the juvenile court conducted the six-month review hearing. In its report filed for the hearing, the department informed the court petitioner completed parenting and domestic violence classes and outpatient substance abuse treatment. In addition, she was participating in individual therapy and randomly drug testing with negative results. She regularly participated in supervised visitation with the children, who appeared to be strongly bonded to her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the department did not provide reasonable services. The court ordered the department to continue providing services and to arrange unsupervised visitation. The court set the 12-month review hearing for September 2008.
The 12-month review hearing was continued multiple times and conducted in November 2008. Meanwhile, petitioner’s circumstances and attitude toward reunification changed. In July 2008, petitioner stopped drug testing. In August 2008, during an unsupervised visit, petitioner left O.H. and N.H. in the bathtub by themselves for what she later claimed was for less than a minute. H.V. discovered N.H. submerged with his nose and mouth covered by water and pulled him out of the bathtub. In September 2008, petitioner gave birth to a daughter. In mid-September 2008, during a departmental meeting, petitioner stated she did not want to reunify with M.V. and H.V. According to M.V. and H.V.’s therapist, who was present, petitioner stated she did not have the interest or financial means and “want[ed] to get on with her own life.” Two weeks later, petitioner told the social worker she changed her mind and wanted to reunify with all four children. Approximately a week later, petitioner told the social worker she did not want to participate in services to reunify with her children. The next day, she contacted the social worker and said she changed her mind.
By October 2008, petitioner was voicing her intention of not reunifying with M.V. and H.V. directly to them. According to their therapist, petitioner told M.V. and H.V. during a therapy session she was choosing the two younger children. She told M.V. and H.V. they were big enough to take care of themselves and did not need her any longer. The therapist asked petitioner not to return to therapy if she were going to say hurtful things to the children and wrote a letter to the social worker recommending termination of services and no further contact.
The social worker with the foster family agency who placed M.V. and H.V., also felt compelled to address the effect of petitioner’s statements on them. In a letter to the department, the social worker stated the children’s behavior stabilized several months after their placement. However, they began suffering emotionally as petitioner was deciding whether she wanted them. M.V. developed a facial tic causing his lips to pull up and his head to jerk. H.V. suffered bouts of hysterical crying and was picking obsessively at her hands, arms, face and legs.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the department recommended the court terminate petitioner’s reunification services and proceed to permanency planning. In addition, the department reported O.H. and N.H.’s care providers were willing to provide a permanent plan of adoption. Conversely, M.V. and H.V.’s care providers were not willing to provide them a permanent home but their father wanted to take custody of them after he completed parole in June 2009.
The 12-month review hearing was conducted as a contested hearing in November 2008. Petitioner testified and denied telling M.V. and H.V. she did not want them. She merely supported them living with their father.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found petitioner was provided reasonable services and her progress was moderate. The court also found it would be detrimental to return the children to her custody and terminated reunification services. Finally, the court set a section 366.26 hearing to select permanent plans for the children and ordered supervised visitation. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues she complied with her court-ordered services. Therefore, she contends, the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services and ordering supervised visitation. In the petition, petitioner challenges and seeks to clarify statements contained in departmental reports dating back to the children’s detention in July 2007. She also points out the inadequacy of services provided during the first six-month period of reunification and gives the dates of visitation and therapy sessions, noting whether they were conducted or cancelled. In addition, she included six certificates of completion and a letter of support dated December 2008.
As a preliminary matter, our review is confined to the appellate record. Therefore, this court cannot consider any evidence contained in the writ petition that was not before the juvenile court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) Further, the juvenile court’s findings and orders issued at all hearings prior to the 12-month review hearing are now final. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811-812.) Therefore, we cannot review any of the evidence the juvenile court considered in rendering those findings and orders. (Ibid.) Finally, we cannot reweigh evidence admitted at the 12-month review hearing. (In re Walter E. (1992) 13 Cal.App.4th 125, 139-140.) Rather, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings and orders based on the evidence before it. (Ibid.) In this case, we conclude that it does.
The juvenile court has discretion at the 12-month review hearing to extend reunification services if it finds a substantial probability the child will be returned to parental custody and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, or if it finds reasonable services were not provided to the parent. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a); 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Petitioner does not challenge the reasonableness of services provided after the six months review hearing. Rather, she claims she was compliant. Consequently, we are concerned only with whether there was a substantial probability of return.
In assessing whether there is a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court must consider the parent’s capacity to meet the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child’s physical safety and emotional well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(C).) While petitioner may have participated in her services, the court had ample cause to question her ability to safeguard her children’s physical and emotional well-being. She continued to place her children at risk of physical harm as evidenced by her leaving O.H. and N.H. in the bathtub unattended. In addition, she inflicted severe emotional abuse on M.V. and H.V. Since there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to petitioner’s custody with continued services, the juvenile court was correct in terminating her reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing.
Further, on a challenge to the juvenile court’s visitation order, we determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion. (See In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) Given petitioner’s blatant disregard for the children’s emotional and physical well-being, we find no error in the court’s order for supervised visitation.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.