Opinion
F074326
01-04-2017
Melissa W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Melissa W., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 516695, 516696, 516697 & 51761)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Melissa W., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.
-ooOoo-
Melissa W. (mother), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's dispositional orders denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her three daughters, nine-year-old Isabella, four-year-old O.F., and three-year-old Gabriella, and her 10-month-old son, Derrick. We deny the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
This is the second dependency action for mother's three daughters. The previous dependency action was initiated in May 2013, because mother and J.F., the children's father, regularly used methamphetamine and engaged in domestic violence. In September 2015, after 18 months of reunification services, the children were returned to their parents' custody. Mother and J.F. (father) are hearing impaired and use American Sign Language (ASL) and lip reading to communicate.
These dependency proceedings were initiated in late March 2016, when the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) received a report of domestic violence between mother and father which resulted in father's arrest. Mother reported that father slapped her leg to wake her up and accused her of communicating with another man on social media. He told her he would kill the man. He then forced her to have sexual intercourse. A week before that, he punched her on the arm and ribs. He was also violent with her during her pregnancy. The children stated they witnessed father hitting mother and that their parents hit them. Mother said she had been clean and sober for three years but provided a sample for the agency which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine. She first stated that father forced her to use methamphetamine but then admitted using his "stash."
The agency took the children into protective custody and filed a dependency petition on their behalf under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage). The agency placed the children together in the home of their former foster parents.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained pursuant to the petition at a hearing on April 13, 2016. That same day, the agency provided mother and father referrals for a clinical assessment, domestic violence counseling and parenting classes. The agency also scheduled a substance abuse assessment for mother and made sure an interpreter was present to accommodate her hearing impairment.
The agency recommended the juvenile court exercise its dependency jurisdiction over the children and deny both parents reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) because of their "extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs" and resistance to prior court-ordered treatment for their drug problem. Mother and father participated in court-ordered treatment for methamphetamine use in 2013 and mother completed treatment in June 2014. However, she was noncompliant at various times and nearly discharged from the program in March for possessing a prescribed narcotic. After completing the program in June, she began missing after care meetings. She subsequently resumed methamphetamine use in March 2016. The agency also recommended the juvenile court find that providing mother and father reunification services would not serve the children's best interests because the years of neglect, exposure to domestic violence and their parents' drug addiction had taken an emotional toll on the children and the children were doing very well in their foster home.
In May 2016, the juvenile court convened a combined hearing on jurisdiction and disposition. Mother and father were present with their attorneys. The court continued the hearing to June because an ASL interpreter was not available. The court continued the June hearing and ordered a bonding study. The court set a contested hearing for August and advised the parties that the hearing would not be continued if the bonding study was not available. On the date set for the August hearing, however, the court conducted a Marsden hearing and set a contested hearing for September 2016.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
Meanwhile, mother continued to use methamphetamine. She completed a substance abuse assessment on June 16, 2016, after two "no shows" and was referred to First Step Perinatal Treatment Program for out-patient treatment. She attended an interim group on June 21, 2016, and one group on July 1. She called in sick on two days and was a "no call no show" on 10 days. On July 26, 2016, she tested positive for methamphetamine. The agency advised the court of her continuing use in an addendum report filed in July 2016, stating "With all eyes upon her, and with the knowledge of this [a]gency's recommendation, she continues to use methamphetamine."
In September 2016, the juvenile court conducted a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. Mother and father were present represented by counsel and assisted by ASL interpreters. Mother testified that her social worker, John Boisa, told her that she could not continue treatment at First Step until she completed another substance abuse assessment but he had not told her when that would take place. Boisa testified he notified mother by text message around August 17, that she needed to complete a second substance abuse assessment and he asked her what day she preferred. He said an appointment was scheduled for mother but he forgot to communicate that to her so he had to reschedule her appointment.
The juvenile court sustained the section 300, subdivision (b) allegations, denied mother and father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Father did not file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
Mother raises three issues in her writ petition: the juvenile court continued the case three times because an interpreter was not available which prevented her from progressing in her services plan; John Boisa failed to tell her of her rescheduled substance abuse assessment and the agency failed to provide interpreters to assist her in understanding and participating in her services. We find her contentions meritless.
Mother also appended various documents to her writ petition which are extraneous to the record and therefore not reviewable by this court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) --------
We begin with mother's first and third contentions and observe that the appellate record simply does not support them. The juvenile court continued the matter one time because an interpreter was not available. That occurred in May 2016. Further, mother provides no evidence that that continuance interfered with her ability to avail herself of the services provided by the agency. Nor is there any evidence that the agency failed to provide mother the services of an interpreter. On the contrary, the agency made every effort to accommodate her by securing an interpreter for each service provided and at a time that was convenient for her. Further, Boisa's failure to notify mother of her substance abuse assessment was an oversight. It was not, as mother contends, legal error. Boisa was required to make reasonable efforts to assist mother in accessing substance abuse services. He did so by arranging multiple substance abuse assessments for her and facilitating her entry into First Step's program. The fact that he forgot to notify her of a substance abuse assessment scheduled several days before the dispositional hearing does not render his overall efforts unreasonable given his efforts over the previous six months to help mother engage in services.
We find no error and deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.