Opinion
F043797.
10-23-2003
PATRICIA V., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, Respondent, TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party In Interest.
Patricia V., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, and Kim Knowles, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
Petitioner, mother of minor A., in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. 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 August 2002, then 11-year-old A. and his four siblings, were removed from petitioners custody because she did not feed the children. Pursuant to a dependency petition, the juvenile court found the children were minors described by section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner. Petitioners case plan required her to complete a psychological evaluation and participate in mental health counseling, complete a course in parenting and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered bimonthly supervised visitation.
Petitioner received 12 months of services, however, she failed to comply. She attended parenting sessions and counseling groups, however was disruptive and denied that she neglected her children. She also participated in three psychological evaluations, however, she was uncooperative. Consequently, the examiners were unable to interpret the results. Meanwhile, the children were doing well in their respective placements. A. unequivocally stated he did not want to return to petitioners custody. In fact, visitation with petitioner was so difficult for A. that A.s foster father reported A. visibly flinched when petitioner touched him and he would shut down emotionally for three to four days after a visit with petitioner. In its 12-month review, the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) recommended the court terminate reunification services and order A. into long-term foster care.
Petitioner appeared at the 12-month review represented by counsel and submitted on the departments report. The court terminated reunification services for petitioner as to all five children and set a section 366.26 hearing for A. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends her counsel was ineffective because he did not present evidence favorable to her position. Specifically, she claims she asked her attorney to offer copies of A.s medical and school records to challenge the accuracy of the departments reports and testimony taken at prior hearings. Had the evidence been presented, she claims, dependency proceedings would not have continued beyond the first hearing. We find no merit to her claim.
A petitioner asserting ineffectiveness of counsel in juvenile dependency proceedings must prove both deficient performance based on an objective reasonable standard and prejudicial error. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1667-1668.) Counsels performance is deficient if it "`fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ... under prevailing professional norms." (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216.) Moreover, appellant has suffered prejudice if, absent counsels errors, there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. (Id. at p. 218.)
In this case, petitioner fails to establish that counsels failure to present copies of A.s school and medical records constitutes deficient performance or that it prejudiced her case. The court terminated petitioners reunification services after 12 months because she failed to comply with her case plan. She was uncooperative with the psychologists administering the psychological evaluations. Consequently, they could not assess her for mental health problems and assist her in treating them. She attended, but did not meaningfully participate in parenting classes and group counseling sessions. Moreover, she continued to deny that she had neglected the children in any way. As a result, petitioner made no progress toward resolving the problem that necessitated the removal of her children. She therefore posed a continuing threat to their physical and emotional well-being if they were returned to her custody. There is no reason to conclude that evidence drawn from the school and medical records would have persuaded the juvenile court otherwise. Accordingly, petitioners counsel was not ineffective for not offering the evidence and the court properly terminated reunification services. We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.