From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. C.S. (In re A.S.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 14, 2023
No. E080915 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023)

Opinion

E080915

08-14-2023

In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.S., Defendant and Appellant. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. J290308. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.

Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MILLER J.

At the 18-month review hearing (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 366.22), the juvenile court ordered A.S. (a girl born July 2021; Minor) to be placed in the physical custody of her mother, defendant and appellant C.S. (Mother), on a plan of family maintenance. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by ordering a plan of family maintenance rather than dismissing the case. We affirm.

All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise provided.

FACTS

Mother was born in 1986, so she was 34 years old when she gave birth to Minor in July 2021. In August 2021, Mother admitted abusing methamphetamine and marijuana since she was teenager. Mother's criminal history consists of many drug related crimes, roughly two per year, dating back to 2006 when Mother was 19 years old. "[Mother] reported she went to Gibson House for Women for rehabilitation services a few years prior and stopped her use of methamphetamines." Mother also "reported that she has enrolled in various substance abuse programs but never completed one due to the criminal case being dismissed and/or checking herself out early because she feels she can stop on her own."

Mother tested positive for methamphetamine when she was 16 weeks pregnant with Minor; at that point, Mother learned she was pregnant and stopped abusing methamphetamine during the remainder of the pregnancy. Mother said that "prior to her pregnancy she used methamphetamine and marijuana frequently, 'on and off.'" Minor's "meconium came back positive for THC." On August 19, 2021, Mother tested positive for amphetamines, and plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) detained Minor.

Mother enrolled in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Mother tested negative for drugs 16 times between August 2021 and April 2022. In May 2022, Mother switched to a different substance abuse treatment program. Mother completed the treatment program and tested negative for drugs nine times between April and September 2022.

On January 2, 2023, Mother moved into a transitional sober living home. Mother and Minor are allowed to stay in the home for a maximum of two years. On January 3, 2023, Minor began staying with Mother overnight on an extended visit.

The 18-month review hearing took place on February 23, 2023. Mother's attorney requested the juvenile court dismiss the case because Mother had tested negative for drugs for months and Minor's extended visit with Mother was going well. Mother's attorney "argue[d] that conditions no longer exist justifying supervision under Section 300."

Minor's attorney disagreed, arguing that Mother "just started unsupervised visits in January," so she "would like to see a further period of sobriety and also . . . see [Minor] adjusted to the group home . . . environment." The Department contended the only issue on the calendar was whether to return Minor to Mother's physical custody- not dismissal of the case.

The juvenile court ordered Minor immediately placed in Mother's physical custody. The court then said, "But since I'm returning literally this minute it would be inappropriate to consider closure at this time as we do need to make sure the child is safe in Mother's care and have a period of supervision. [¶] . . . [¶] I'll set a semiannual review on August the 23rd."

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred by not dismissing the case after returning Minor to Mother's custody at the 18-month hearing.

A juvenile court has the authority to return a child to his or her parent on a plan of family maintenance at the 18-month hearing. (Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 311.) However, the juvenile court must dismiss a case "unless the social worker or his or her department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn." (§ 364, subd. (c); In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 171-172.) We focus on the latter factor, i.e., that the conditions are likely to return if supervision is terminated. We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. (N.S., at p. 172.)

In the past, Mother repeatedly started substance abuse treatment programs; when her criminal cases ended, Mother quit treatment and relapsed. That pattern continued over a 15-year period. In the instant case, "[Mother] reported that she only enrolled into [the initial] substance abuse program because she thought [the Department] was going to take away her baby."

The foregoing evidence supports a finding that, if this case were dismissed, Mother would likely leave the sober living home and relapse because that has been her pattern for 15 years. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence supporting the finding that Minor is likely to be at substantial risk of serious physical harm, due to Mother's drug abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A)), if the case were dismissed.

Within Mother's sufficiency of the evidence contention, she asserts the juvenile "court relied on the wrong standard regarding terminating jurisdiction. There is no required length of time that a child must be placed with her mother before the court may terminate jurisdiction." To the extent Mother intended to develop this assertion into a separate argument (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)), it is unpersuasive. The juvenile court did not express a belief that there is a minimum amount of placement days that must be achieved prior to the case being dismissed. Rather, the juvenile court said, "[W]e do need to make sure the child is safe in Mother's care and have a period of supervision." The juvenile court's comment indicates a desire for proof that the conditions requiring supervision are not likely to return if supervision is terminated (§ 364, subd. (c)), which is the proper standard.

DISPOSITION

The 18-month/permanency review order (§ 366.22) requiring family maintenance is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. RAPHAEL J.


Summaries of

San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. C.S. (In re A.S.)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Aug 14, 2023
No. E080915 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023)
Case details for

San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. C.S. (In re A.S.)

Case Details

Full title:In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.S.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 14, 2023

Citations

No. E080915 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023)