From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Candace J. (In re J.J.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2020
F079395 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020)

Opinion

F079395

01-23-2020

In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CANDACE J., Defendant and Appellant.

Alexis Collentine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 518225)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Alexis Collentine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

-ooOoo-

Appellant Candace J. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her now nearly two-year-old son, J.J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother's court-appointed attorney informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother's behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H).) Mother filed a letter but failed to make the requisite showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------

DISCUSSION

Newborn J.J. was taken into protective custody in March 2018 by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) after he and mother tested positive for opiates. Mother claimed to be taking a few pills she had left over from a 90-day prescription for Norco issued in June 2017. Her nurse, however, believed she was taking the medication on a regular basis given J.J.'s neonatal abstinence scores. Mother had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana use.

A public health nurse who monitored mother's treatment said mother did not have custody of her firstborn son, A.J. In September 2014, she gave birth to a second son, G.J., who tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother agreed to voluntary family maintenance services, including a substance abuse assessment and random drug treatment. However, she did not keep her appointments to assess her drug use and refused to drug test. In October, G.J. died at seven weeks of age from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and the agency closed the case.

The agency placed a protective hold on J.J. at the hospital because of mother's history and the refusal of her mother, Carol J., to allow the social worker to assess her home. The agency filed a dependency petition on J.J.'s behalf, alleging counts as to mother under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Specifically it alleged under subdivision (b) that mother misused prescribed opiates and had inadequate prenatal care while pregnant with J.J., had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana use and a criminal history of drug-related charges, and refused the social worker access to her home. It additionally alleged under subdivision (j) that G.J. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and died at seven weeks of age from SIDS. The petition also alleged one count under section 300, subdivision (g) (no provision for support) as to J.J.'s father whose identity was unknown as mother was only able to provide the first names of two alleged fathers.

The juvenile court ordered him detained pursuant to the petition and granted the agency discretion to release him to mother's care if safe and appropriate to do so. The court subsequently appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for mother.

In April 2018, at the jurisdictional hearing, mother's attorney made an offer of proof that mother had "already engaged in services, including parenting and [a substance abuse] assessment." Mother denied having a history of methamphetamine use and claimed she took her medication as prescribed, G.J.'s positive test results were a false positive, and she pled no contest to drug charges under duress. The agency made an offer of proof that the social worker if called would testify that mother had not completed a substance abuse assessment or submitted to hair follicle analysis. The juvenile court accepted the offers of proof.

The juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and adjudged J.J. a dependent child as alleged. The court expressed its concern about J.J.'s positive results for opiates and mother's significant number of prior child welfare referrals, erratic behavior and possible mental health problems. The court continued the matter for disposition in May 2018.

On May 7, 2018, mother appeared and through her attorney objected to the agency's recommendation that she submit to a hair follicle analysis, arguing it was "invasive, intrusive and not supported by the evidence." No evidence was presented and her attorney did not argue. The juvenile court ordered J.J. removed from mother's custody and ordered mother to participate in reunification services but denied them to the alleged fathers. The court set a six-month review hearing for November 2018.

Mother filed a notice of appeal from the dispositional rulings and her appellate counsel filed a "no-issues" letter under Phoenix H. Mother was granted leave to file a letter, which she did. She claimed trial counsel was ineffective in not refuting allegations her prenatal care was inadequate and in not defending against the agency's allegation G.J. died because she accidentally smothered him rather than from SIDS. Her appeal was dismissed. (Stanislaus Co. Community Services Agency v. C.J. (Jan. 4, 2019, F077550) [nonpub. opn.].)

In October 2018, the agency filed its report for the six-month review hearing, recommending the juvenile court terminate mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Although it was apparent mother loved J.J., she declined to submit to a hair follicle analysis or participate in grief counseling to address the death of her son. In addition, she was evaluated by a psychologist who opined she was mentally incapable of caring for a newborn child and was "likely addict[ed] to [o]piate medication."

In January 2019, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing. Mother's attorney made an offer of proof which was accepted that she loved J.J., regularly visited him, and had a close and loving relationship with him. Although she refused to drug test by hair follicle analysis, she provided urine samples which yielded negative results. She attended two grief counseling sessions, completed the classroom portion of the parenting program and was waiting for approval to begin the parenting lab sessions. She objected to termination of reunification services and asked the court to give her another six months.

Following argument, the juvenile court terminated mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for May 24. In ruling, the court expressed its concerns that, according to the psychologist, mother was incapable of meeting J.J.'s needs and appeared to suffer from opioid addiction. Mother did not challenge the juvenile court's setting order by extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.)

In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate mother's parental rights and free J.J. for adoption by his caregivers who were committed to adopting him. He had been in their care since April 2018 and was strongly bonded to them and their daughter.

Mother appeared with her attorney and GAL at the section 366.26 hearing on May 24, 2019. Her attorney made an offer of proof that she was devastated by the outcome and believed she had a very special bond with J.J. and it would be detrimental to him if her parental rights were severed. She strongly believed she did the best she could under difficult circumstances by consistently visiting him and making her best effort with the case plan requirements. She also believed she understood J.J.'s needs better than anyone else. She asked that J.J. be placed with her sister and that she be afforded a final visit and photograph. County counsel made an offer of proof the social worker was unaware mother's sister wanted placement.

The juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights after finding J.J. was likely to be adopted and termination would not be detrimental to him.

DISCUSSION

At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to adoption).

Mother did not challenge the evidence of J.J.'s adoptability or argue any of the exceptions to adoption applied at the section 366.26 hearing. Nor does she do so on appeal. Rather, she contends her parental rights were terminated without due process. The violation she claims stemmed from the agency's four-year investigation into the death of G.J. and its conclusion that she murdered him. She contends her attorney and GAL shared this information with another parent on May 7, 2018, when they stated mother was "crazy" and would never get her children back because she killed her baby. According to mother, they also warned this other parent to "stay away" from her. As a result of the defamatory statements of her attorney, GAL and social workers, mother argues, her parental rights were terminated "without the authority of the law or the court."

In her Phoenix H. letter filed in the appeal from the dispositional findings and orders, mother claimed the agency falsely accused her of accidentally smothering G.J. even though the coroner attributed his death to SIDS. As we stated in our opinion, "the agency's representation regarding the cause of G.J.'s death is consistent with mother's; it alleged he died of SIDS." Despite her contention, there was no evidence anyone was accusing mother of accidentally smothering G.J. Nor is there any evidence the agency continued to investigate his case.

Since mother does not raise any issues from the section 366.26 hearing, she has failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Candace J. (In re J.J.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2020
F079395 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020)
Case details for

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Candace J. (In re J.J.)

Case Details

Full title:In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 23, 2020

Citations

F079395 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020)