In re A.Z.
In re A.Z.
Filed 8/7/08 In re A.Z. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re A.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.Z.,
Defendant and Appellant. |
D052600
(Super. Ct. No. J515921B) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
J.Z. appeals an order terminating her reunification services regarding her son, A.Z. She contends the court erred by terminating her services while continuing services for A.Z.'s father, Armando N. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on behalf of newborn A.Z. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),[1]alleging he was at risk because J.Z. was mentally ill and she had not reunified with another child because of her mental illness. The petition also alleged Armando was unable to protect A.Z. The social worker reported J.Z. had a history of mental illness, drug abuse and domestic violence. Her two older children were in the maternal grandmother's custody. J.Z. told the social worker she had attended drug treatment in February and March 2006, had been attending two Narcotics Anonymous meetings each week, and was scheduled to begin another drug treatment program. She first denied being mentally ill, but then acknowledged she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and said she was not taking any medication. The court ordered A.Z. detained in foster care.
At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings on May 15, 2007, the court found the allegations of the petition true, ordered A.Z. placed in out-of-home care and ordered the parents to comply with their reunification plans. J.Z.'s case plan included the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) program, counseling, a psychotropic medication evaluation, a psychiatric/psychological evaluation and parenting education.
In the report for the six-month review hearing dated November 6, 2007, the social worker reported J.Z. had entered a residential treatment program and had begun therapy. The social worker opined J.Z had not shown she was able to stabilize her mental health. She had not gained employment or secured a suitable home for A.Z., and she moved frequently and did not inform the Agency of how to contact her. In an addendum report, the social worker said J.Z. had been discharged from the residential treatment program for not complying with the rules of the program.
At the six-month review hearing on February 15, 2008, J.Z.'s therapist testified J.Z. suffered from depression related to her substance abuse. He said he was pleased with her progress and opined she did not need medication. He said J.Z. had been terminated from her residential program, not because of her drug use, but because she violated rules of the facility.
The court continued A.Z. as a dependent child of the juvenile court. It found reasonable services had been provided and terminated J.Z.'s court-ordered services. It continued services for Armando to the 12-month date.
DISCUSSION
J.Z. contends the court erred by terminating her court-ordered services while continuing them for Armando and not setting a section 366.26 hearing. She argues she had been making efforts to comply with her services plan, and the court's order was not in A.Z.'s best interests.
In In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 57-65, this court held that when read together, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2), which governs the provision of reunification services as to a child who is less than three years old at the time of removal from a parent, and section 366.21, subdivision (e), which governs six-month review hearings, do not preclude terminating services for one parent regardless of whether the court sets a section 366.26 hearing or offers further services to the other parent. "[A]s the Legislature has recognized, it may be fruitless to provide reunification services under certain circumstances." (In re Rebecca H. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 825, 837.)
The court's order terminating J.Z.'s services is well supported by her poor compliance with her reunification services and her lack of progress in completing the goals of her plan. Her services plan required that she participate in SARMS, counseling, a psychotropic medication evaluation, a psychiatric/psychological evaluation and parenting education. J.Z. did not participate in evaluations to determine her need for psychotropic medication, and she did not provide documentation to show she had enrolled in a parenting class. She was unemployed and did not have appropriate housing for A.Z. She was not complying with the SARMS program. She was first directed to an outpatient program, but because she did not follow the requirements of that program, her treatment plan was modified to require residential treatment. She entered residential treatment, but in late December, a few weeks before the hearing, she was terminated from the program for not following the rules of the facility. Her case manager at the treatment program stated J.Z. "was discharged . . . for continuous non-compliance. We have given [J.Z.] ample opportunity to start looking at appropriate behavior and how to handle things and she chose to not follow the rules and regulations of the program."
J.Z. was not complying with her reunification plan or making reasonable progress in attaining the goals of her services. She has not shown that A.Z.'s interests would be served by continuing her court-ordered services for an additional six months. The court did not err by terminating her services at the six-month review hearing while continuing services for Armando.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
|
