Opinion
F080653
05-01-2020
Stephanie G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Maria Sullivan, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. JV7916, JV7917, JV7918, JV7919)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Stephanie G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Maria Sullivan, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Peña, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
Stephanie G. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for May 5, 2020, as to her children, now eight-year-old Anthony V., six-year-old Randall C. III, and five-year-old twins D.C. and Bentley C.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Mother contends the juvenile court violated the law when it exercised its dependency jurisdiction over her and the children. She seeks orders returning the children to her custody and terminating dependency jurisdiction or providing her an additional period of reunification services. She also seeks a stay of the section 366.26 hearing. We deny the petition and the request for a stay.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2018 when the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) received a call from a sheriff's deputy who had been called out to mother's home to conduct a welfare check. A man answered the door and identified himself as the babysitter. After he gave a false name, it was determined he was Timothy V., Anthony's father, and had a felony warrant. He was arrested. The deputy spoke to mother, who stated she was in the process of turning herself in on an outstanding warrant. Randall C., father of the three younger children (father), was also in the process of turning himself into authorities.
The following day, it was reported that mother spent the previous night with her drug dealer and was "tweaking" all night. The investigating social worker made multiple attempts to meet mother in person, but she would only speak over the phone and yelled at the social worker. Social workers eventually met with father at his home. He smelled strongly of alcohol. He said mother used methamphetamine approximately once a week.
The department filed a dependency petition on the children's behalf alleging the parents' substance abuse placed the children at risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The petition included an allegation that mother tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana on June 28, 2018.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, found the allegations true and referred mother to the Dependency Drug Court (DDC). At the dispositional hearing in September 2018, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from parental custody and approved a reunification plan, requiring mother to participate in parenting, mental health and substance abuse services and submit to random drug testing through the DDC. Anthony and Randall were placed with their maternal grandfather. Bentley and D.C. were placed in foster care. Mother did not challenge the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings by appealing from the dispositional findings and orders.
Mother was minimally compliant over the first six months of services. She entered residential drug treatment on November 15, 2018, but the following day mother told the social worker the program "was not for her." She left treatment on November 24, 2018. Staff reported that she yelled at other participants and called them profane names. In December 2018, mother began outpatient substance abuse treatment but subsequently tested positive for marijuana, opiates and methamphetamine on March 19, 2019. Several days later, she was readmitted for treatment. During this period, mother received multiple orders to show cause from the DDC for not drug testing or testing positive and failing to attend 12-step meetings. She also discontinued psychotropic medication she was prescribed because she did not like how it made her feel. She stopped attending mental health counseling in January 2019 and parenting classes in February 2019 after attending eight classes.
Father participated in services with mixed success. Timothy did not participate in services or visit Anthony. His whereabouts were unknown.
On April 9, 2019, the juvenile court continued reunification for all three parents and set the 12-month review hearing for August 13, 2019.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for all three parents. On April 23, 2019, mother was terminated from the DDC for leaving residential treatment. She was given a revised case plan with modified substance abuse requirements, requiring her to attend substance abuse group sessions twice a week, 12-step meetings three times a week and substance abuse counseling once a month. She did not start attending substance abuse groups again until July 2019. She was not attending parenting classes or counseling sessions, only submitted two 12-step attendance cards, missed 15 random drug tests, turned in two dilute samples for testing and tested positive for methamphetamine on April 30, 2019.
On July 11, 2019, mother requested a contested 12-month review hearing. After a contested hearing on September 24, 2019, at which mother testified, the juvenile court stated mother had a "serious addiction" but believed the "lightbulb" had finally gone on, referring to her acknowledgement her addiction blinded her to her children's needs. The court continued reunification services for her to the 18-month review hearing scheduled for December 17, 2019, and terminated reunification services for both fathers.
In its report for the 18-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother's reunification services. She had not made any progress since the 12-month status review hearing. Her participation in substance abuse services, including random drug testing and attendance at 12-step meetings, was inconsistent. Further, she did not complete parenting education and individual counseling services. Although she regularly visited the children, the department did not believe based on her lack of progress that the children could be returned to her custody after an additional period of reunification services.
On December 31, 2019, mother requested a contested review hearing. Father was present in custody, having been arrested on a warrant. The contested hearing was set for January 17, 2020.
Prior to the hearing, the department filed an addendum report, advising the juvenile court of father's arrest on December 10, 2019, at mother's home for violating a protective order and having two outstanding felony warrants and one misdemeanor warrant. Mother told the police father arrived at her home uninvited and smashed the front windshield of her vehicle. She contacted the police the evening before to report he broke the glass window on her fireplace door.
Additionally, in December, mother delivered an "Affidavit of Show of Cause Proof of Claim Demand and Contract" to county counsel. She accused the department and the juvenile court of committing fraud and kidnapping her children. She demanded the closure of her dependency case and the children's return to her custody. If her demands were not met within 72 hours, she demanded the department pay her $5,000 per child per day until they were returned to her custody. In addition, she provided a cover letter, stating she thought she was being fair by "charging" the department $5,000 per child per day since she could have legally charged the department $200,000,000 per child per day. She claimed the department, social worker, state director, county director, and managers could be held personally responsible for withholding her children from her.
The department also reported it referred mother to University of California Davis CAARE Diagnostic and Treatment Center for a psychological evaluation. As of December 20, 2019, she was second on the list and was assigned a psychologist. However, mother would have to be sober for each appointment with the psychologist in order to complete an evaluation and a roundtrip to Sacramento required devoting a community health worker for a day. Given the time investment, mother's inability to maintain sobriety, the demand for psychological evaluations and the recommendation to terminate mother's reunification services, the department decided against scheduling a psychological evaluation for her.
On January 21, 2020, the department submitted on the reports. Minors' counsel concurred with the recommendation to terminate reunification services. Mother presented no evidence. Her attorney argued mother did not understand why her children were removed. She acknowledged not being a perfect parent but considered herself a safe parent. She argued for the children's return to her custody. She further argued the department offered her too many services, which was "unnecessary, ... counterproductive, depressing, increasing in humiliating stress and added pressure." She also argued the department was unreasonable for not referring her for a psychological evaluation. County counsel explained the department's reasoning for not referring her for a psychological evaluation.
The juvenile court adopted the department's recommendations. In ruling, the court addressed mother's claim she did not understand why the children were removed, stating:
"[Mother] is arguing that she doesn't understand why her kids were removed, why the Department thinks there's a risk, why the court thinks there's a risk to the children being with [mother]. I think she knows exactly what the risk to the children is. She's not acknowledging the risk and she—I read it as a sort of desperate attempt by somebody to argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction as a last gasp or hail Mary, if you will, to try and intimidate everybody into doing what [mother] wants. [¶] This case started off because she was gone, left the kids with [Anthony V.]. She wasn't there, she was actively using."
Father also filed a writ petition, which is pending in this court as case No. F080660. --------
DISCUSSION
Citing the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.), mother contends the juvenile court violated the law by exercising its dependency jurisdiction over her and the children in the absence of evidence she committed a criminal offense.
The Welfare and Institutions Code grants the juvenile court authority to exercise its dependency jurisdiction over a child described in any of the subdivisions of section 300. The juvenile court does not exercise jurisdiction over the parent and a criminal act is not required for the court to take jurisdiction. In this case, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over mother's children under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) which pertains to children, as relevant here, who have suffered or are at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness because of the parent's substance abuse and inability to provide the child regular care.
The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings must be challenged by a timely appeal from the dispositional order. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 624.) "Failure to appeal from an appealable dispositional order waives any substantive challenge to the jurisdictional findings." (Ibid.) Mother did not appeal the juvenile court's assumption of dependency jurisdiction over the children under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) by filing an appeal from its dispositional findings and orders issued in September 2018. Consequently, she forfeited the issue. The court's jurisdictional findings are now final and not subject to our review.
Federal legislation provides a foundation for states by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. CAPTA (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by PL 111.320, the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
"[A]ny recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
Aside from citing CAPTA, mother does not explain how the juvenile court's rulings in this case violate the law. Consequently, we deny her petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).