Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Original proceeding; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County Nos. DP017019 and DP017020, Salvador Sarmiento, Judge. Petition denied.
J. Michael Hughes and Lawrence A. Aufill for Petitioner.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Service Agency.
Rebecca N. Captain for the Minors.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
Tina S., the mother of nine-year-old R.R. and four-year-old D.R., petitions for an extraordinary writ seeking to reverse a decision scheduling a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to this code) selection and implementation hearing. She argues the decision is not supported by sufficient evidence that there is substantial risk of detriment if the children were to be placed in her care. We disagree and deny the petition.
FACTS
The children were taken into protective custody based on mother’s failure to report the sexual abuse of her 14-year-old sister by mother’s then boyfriend and sexually inappropriate conduct by the boyfriend directed at then three-year-old R.R. Mother also had a history of substance abuse and a substantial criminal history. Although aware of the boyfriend’s sexual misconduct, mother continued to permit him to share a bedroom with her and the children. At the time of the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, mother who was in custody, pleaded no contest. She received various court-ordered services during the period up to the 18-month review.
In the 18-month review report, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) recommended termination of reunification services and scheduling a section 366.26 hearing. At the time of the report, mother was approximately six months pregnant. She was unemployed and it was unclear how she supported herself. Mother had been released from jail approximately two months before the date of the report and had initially misrepresented her address to the SSA representative. Shortly after her release from jail, mother was again taken into custody while she and the children were driving with her then boyfriend, a parolee at large, and wanted for questioning in a murder case.
The social worker also found a bench warrant for mother. Mother told her that she was supposed to show proof she had complied with an order to participate in a 52-week parenting class, which she had not done. Mother had also missed at least three drug tests and failed to provide proof of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. During joint sessions with R.R. and the latter’s therapist, mother was defensive and did not take responsibility for her actions.
Although mother had completed a number of programs, she had yet to comply with the 12-step program attendance requirement. She was consistent in her visitation with the children but had violated a number of conditions relating to visitation. The SSA report concluded that “[a]fter a period of active progress on her case plan, during this reporting period, the mother regressed to old behavioral patterns. First, the mother’s housing situation is again a problem.... Second, the mother’s legal problems are back.... [¶] Another issue that the mother has been unable to resolve is employment.... [¶] Another issue that is of most concern to the undersigned is the fact that the mother placed the children at high risk by exposing them to unauthorized people who she did not even know[,] one of them being a parolee at large....”
At the time of the hearing, the children’s lawyer also urged the court to terminate reunification and set a hearing under section 366.26. The trial court concluded that return of the children to their mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety and well-being.
DISCUSSION
Section 366.22, subdivision (a) provides that, following the permanency review hearing, “[t]he court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent... unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent... would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s decision.
The foregoing recitation of facts demonstrates that, although mother initially made progress with her case plan, at the time of the 18-month review there were many indications that the children would be at risk if returned to her care. As noted by County Counsel, mother “jeopardized the children’s safety by placing them in a vehicle with a parolee at large wanted for questioning by police on a murder case. Police surrounded the vehicle with guns drawn and arrested the parolee and [mother] for an outstanding warrant. The children were both crying and screaming and taken to the police department.... Rather than admit she failed to protect the children from dangerous individuals, or caused them emotional harm, [mother] minimized the danger in which she had placed the children. Instead, she claimed she knew the police would not shoot because the children were in the car.” County Counsel also points to mother’s failure to attend the weekly 12-step meetings. Plaintiff’s citation to Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748, to the effect that the court must consider “whether the parent participated regularly in [the] treatment program,” does not tell the whole story. The fact that mother participated in significant parts of her plan is not enough; she failed to make the kind of progress that would have supported a finding that the children would no longer be at risk if returned to her care.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J., ARONSON, J.