Opinion
2d Civil No. B237171 Super. Ct. No. 1379676
01-31-2012
THERESA C., Petitioner, v. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent; SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Theresa C., Mother, in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel, County of Santa Barbara, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Barbara County)
Petitioner, Theresa. C. (Mother), appearing in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother has a long juvenile and adult criminal history. She entered the juvenile system in 2005. From 2007 through 2010 she was convicted of and sentenced for multiple theft offenses. In 2009, she was sentenced to prison, and violated her parole following her release.
In 2010, Mother gave birth to Nadia C. (Nadia). Nadia resided with Mother at the Good Samaritan Shelter, and Mother participated in the Family Transition program.
On December 22, 2010, authorities arrested Mother for shoplifting (with Nadia present), and for an outstanding parole warrant. The arresting agency contacted Child Welfare Services (CWS) to arrange for Nadia's care. When the CWS worker tried to detain Nadia, Mother placed her at risk by running toward the street, in her bare feet, while it was raining. She nearly lost control of the stroller, close to several moving cars.
On December 27, 2010, CWS filed a section 300 petition alleging failure to protect and inability to support Nadia. (Id., subds. (b) & (g).) The juvenile court detained Nadia on December 28, 2010, and ordered that CWS have responsibility for her placement and care.
In its January 24, 2011 jurisdiction/disposition report, CWS recommended that the juvenile court take jurisdiction over Nadia. It further recommended that the court bypass reunification services for Mother under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) based upon her history of extensive, abusive and chronic use of alcohol or drugs, and failure to comply with a treatment program.. The January 24 report and a February 22, 2011 addendum report, cited Mother's unsuccessful participation in substance abuse court from July 2007 to August 2008 and her unsuccessful participation in a mental health treatment program from April 2008 to January 2009.
On February 22, 2011, the juvenile court conducted contested jurisdiction and disposition proceedings. Mother testified and acknowledged her participation in multiple treatment programs, including residential programs, a sober living program and dual diagnosis program. She explained that her problem was primarily a "theft problem." When she expressed her desire to reunite with Nadia, Mother was awaiting sentencing in the criminal court. The juvenile court observed that the last time she was in prison, she was there for about a year. It then declared Nadia a dependent of the court, ordered that she remain in foster care under the supervision of CWS, and ordered reunification services for Mother. It also advised her that the time for services would not exceed six months for a child under the age of three.
On March 18, 2011, CWS submitted the case plan it proposed for Mother. The plan provided substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment and parenting services for her. It provided that upon her release from custody, she would be required to comply with her probation conditions. The plan further provided Mother with two supervised visits with Nadia weekly, subject to her release from jail and her submission of two clean drug tests. It also provided that should Mother test positive for any substances, her visits would be suspended until she could provide two clean drug tests.
On March 21, 2011, the juvenile court conducted dispositional proceedings and authorized Nadia's continued placement in foster care. It found that Mother had made minimal progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes of Nadia's placement. It granted Mother reasonable reunification services, based upon the March 18, 2011 addendum report.
In the September 19, 2011 status review report, CWS recommended that the juvenile court terminate Mother's reunification services and schedule a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan for Nadia. CWS reported that Mother and Nadia had one visit in the CWS office before Mother entered the Prototypes program, in Oxnard.
In June 2011, Mother was detained on suspicion of stealing from a Ventura Walgreens store, and of being under the influence. She tested positive for alcohol. That conduct violated the terms of her case plan, including remaining drug free, and complying with her probation conditions. CWS noted that during her incarceration, Mother took advantage of the available parent education material. CWS also reported that Nadia displayed emotional turmoil, by waking two to three times a night screaming, with no apparent cause. She displayed mild to significant developmental delays.
On September 19, 2011, at the six-month status hearing, counsel for Mother advised the juvenile court that she wished to contest the CWS recommendations to terminate her reunification services and set the case for a section 366.26 hearing. Counsel further indicated that Mother was not present, and that she was incarcerated. The court advised counsel to submit an order to produce her for the next hearing, which it set for October 13, 2011.
On October 13, 2011, the juvenile court resumed the six-month status hearing. Mother remained incarcerated and was not in court. CWS submitted the matter on the evidence before the court, including an October 2011 addendum report. Counsel for Mother stated, "I'm going to rest at this time. If after my client is sentenced, her situation changes, if by some chance she gets out of custody, I would do a J.V. 180 then." After considering the evidence, the court found that CWS had complied with the case plan, and that Mother's progress had been minimal. It terminated Mother's reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for January 30, 2012. Mother filed her petition with this court on November 28, 2011.
DISCUSSION
CWS asks that we dismiss Mother's petition because it does not comply with the technical requirements of rule 8.452 (a) and (b) of the California Rules of Court. We will instead consider her petition on the merits.
In reviewing an order withdrawing the provision of reunification services, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency and determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the court's order and we must allow all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.) "It is well settled that our review on this issue is limited to whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence. Issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trial court, not this court. [Citation.]" (In re Cheryl H. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1132, overruled on other ground in People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746, 763.)
In challenging the juvenile court order terminating her reunification services, Mother asserts that the statement, "mother through counsel rests," (which she describes as a finding) is false. Her counsel made that statement, as noted in the background section, above. Moreover, Mother offers nothing to establish that the court's rulings would have differed if counsel had not rested.
Mother also asserts that she was not "properly represented." This assertion also lacks evidentiary support. For example, Mother's counsel persuaded the juvenile court to grant reunification services to her against a contrary recommendation by CWS and in spite of her history of failing to complete treatment programs successfully.
Mother seems to claim that the juvenile court assessed her case plan compliance based on her participation while she was in custody. The record does not support this claim. In assessing Mother's progress, the court relied upon the September 19, 2011 status review report, which described Mother's conduct in June 2011, after her release from custody. She was then arrested for stealing, and was under the influence, which violated her probation conditions and her case plan. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that Mother's "progress had been minimal." Mother's assertion that she had "done what was asked of" her is defeated by her post-release conduct.
Finally, Mother seems to argue that the juvenile court lacked any basis for removing Nadia from her care because she was "never charged in criminal court" with child endangerment. She cites no authority for this argument. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that it was in Nadia's best interest to terminate Mother's reunification services. Among other things, Mother demonstrated an inability to remain sober, and comply with her probation conditions, although her case plan required her to do so in order to reunify with Nadia.
DISPOSITION
We deny the petition.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
Theresa C., Mother, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel, County of Santa Barbara, for Real Party in Interest.