Opinion
F080045
12-31-2019
VICTORIA G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Victoria G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16CEJ300198-1, 16CEJ300198-2)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Leanne L. LeMon, Temporary Judge. Victoria G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Victoria G. (mother), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's dispositional orders issued on September 24, 2019, denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on January 21, 2020, as to her now seven-year-old daughter, A.L., and six-year-old son, D.L. (the children). The children's father, Daniel, is not a party. We conclude mother failed to set forth a cognizable legal error and dismiss the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
On May 15, 2019, officers from the Fresno County Police Department responded to a report of child abuse at an elementary school where then six-year-old A.L. and five-year-old D.L. attended. D.L.'s entire left ear was dark, bruised and swollen. He had a nickel-size abrasion on his left temple in front of his ear. There was also bruising behind his ear, a red mark on the left side of his abdomen and several light-colored red marks on the upper left and lower right sides of his back. He said mother caused the injuries and hit him every day.
A.L. stated mother beat her almost every day. She explained she and D.L. were watching television after school the day before when the television fell on D.L. Mother kicked D.L., causing the bruising to his face and back of his ears. A.L. covered her eyes and face because she was scared of her mother and knew she was next. She was crying very hard while recounting the incident to the officer and said mother told her, " 'I hate you' " while kicking her. The officer could not determine how the television fell on D.L.
Ana I., a family friend, was at the school when the officers arrived. The children often stayed with her and referred to her as their "Aunt." She had written permission from mother to care for the children when she was having problems. Ana believed the " 'problems' " mother had included illegal drug use. Mother called Ana the day before, crying and emotional. She said something happened and begged Ana to take the children. The children told Ana mother was hitting them, but she did not report it to the authorities. She was worried about their safety and wanted to remove them from the situation. The officers placed a protective hold on the children and released them to the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department). They arrested mother on two counts of child abuse and endangerment. She told the officers she was gang affiliated.
A social worker met with mother at the county jail. Mother admitted using methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol every day. She said she relapsed after she reunited with her children in 2018, a reference to a dependency case initiated in 2016, which resulted in the children's removal. She cried, stating, " 'I really tried hard to stay clean, but there is something wrong with me.' "
The 2016 case was initiated when mother left A.L. and D.L. with the maternal great uncle who was homeless. The uncle left the children with a homeless couple. Law enforcement found them in a park unattended. Mother was using methamphetamine daily and marijuana regularly and did not have stable housing. The juvenile court ordered mother to participate in substance abuse and mental health treatment. The court elevated the children's alleged father, Daniel, to their biological father and denied him reunification services. Mother completed residential substance abuse treatment at WestCare in February 2017 and outpatient treatment at Central California Recovery in June 2017. In July 2017, the court terminated her reunification services and ordered family maintenance services. In January 2018, mother was granted sole legal and physical custody of the children.
In this case, the department filed a dependency petition on the children's behalf, alleging mother's physical abuse caused them serious physical harm and emotional damage and her drug abuse prevented her from providing them adequate protection and supervision. The children were placed with Ana after a brief period in foster care and then with Shelly S., the mother of one of Daniel's other children.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children detained and offered mother random drug testing. The court set a combined hearing on jurisdiction and disposition for July 2019. In its report for the hearing, the department recommended the court sustain the petition and deny mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) because of her extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs and alcohol and resistance to court-ordered treatment. It also recommended the court deny Daniel reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (a) and set a section 366.26 hearing.
The parents objected to the department's recommendations and the juvenile court set a contested hearing for September 24, 2019. Meanwhile, mother voluntarily entered WestCare's residential substance abuse treatment program and tested positive for methamphetamine and THC during the admission process. She remained a resident and was having weekly supervised visits with the children there at the time of the contested hearing.
Valentina Sanchez, mother's counselor at WestCare, testified mother was doing well in the program and was committed to improving herself. She was taking classes in parenting, drug and alcohol education, safety and anger management. She was scheduled to complete the program on October 20 and transition to outpatient treatment. Aside from her initial drug test, she tested negative for drugs. She also attended all her group sessions and participated in the discussions. Asked whether she thought mother would succeed in the program, Sanchez replied, "Oh, yes. I know she will." Sanchez observed mother with the children when they came for visits but only in the office and for a brief time. She described mother as "very loving" and said the children always seemed excited to be around her.
Mother testified she was "really, really, really high and drunk" the day she hit and kicked the children. Asked whether she remembered telling the children she "never wanted to have kids," she could not remember saying that and did not feel that way about them. If the juvenile court did not order reunification services for her, she planned to continue treatment at WestCare and address her anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. She did not want to address her mental health issues the first time she was at WestCare because she did not want to relive the trauma. She also planned to get a sponsor, which she did not do in the past. She believed the court should give her a chance to reunify with the children because she was doing everything differently this time and would do anything the court asked of her. She also wanted to improve her relationship with the children through therapy.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations, ordered the children removed from parental custody, denied the parents reunification services as recommended and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends there was not sufficient time for her to prove she made lifestyle changes. She does not, however, challenge the juvenile court's rulings. Consequently, we must, for the reasons we now explain, dismiss her writ petition as facially inadequate for review.
As a general proposition, a juvenile court's rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) A parent seeking review of the juvenile court's orders from the setting hearing must, as mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court's orders and findings issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4).)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing him- or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court. --------
Mother's petition does not comply with rule 8.452 because she does not assert the juvenile court erred in setting a section 366.26 hearing. She merely states she needed more time to prove she made lifestyle changes. Consequently, there is nothing for this court to review.
Further, although we are not required to do so, we have reviewed the record and find sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's decision to deny mother reunification services. Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), the provision on which the juvenile court relied, allows it to deny reunification services to a parent, as relevant here, who has "a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court's attention ...." Mother's chronic use of illicit substances, particularly methamphetamine, is well documented in the record as is her relapse after completing substance abuse treatment in 2017. Consequently, the provisions of subdivision (b)(13) apply to mother's circumstances and supported the juvenile court's decision to deny her reunification services. Additionally, although the court could have exercised its discretion and ordered reunification services despite mother's drug use history and resistance to treatment, there was no reason to believe doing so served the children's best interest. (§ 361.5, subdivision (c)(2).) They had suffered significant neglect and abuse as a result of mother's substance abuse and mother's recovery was in the very early stages. Under the circumstances, the children's best interest was not served by delaying permanence for them while mother attempted rehabilitation. Rather, it was best served by providing them a stable home with a loving and attentive caregiver. Further, once the court decided that reunification was not the plan for the children, it had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for them. Consequently, we would find no error in this case were we to review the merits of the court's rulings. We dismiss mother's petition, however, as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.