In re Camille P.
In re Camille P
In re Camille P.
Filed 1/14/13 In
re Camille P. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re CAMILLE
P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
Defendant and Appellant;
(Super. Ct. No.
from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego
County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge.
Camille P. and her mother, Paula C., appeal an o rder denying services to Paula
to aid her in trying to reunify with Camille.
They contend the court erred because providing reunification services to
Paula is in Camille's best interests. We
affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was first removed from parental care in 2000 when she was one year old. Her father, Anthony W., reunified with
Camille and was granted sole legal custody
in 2001. In January 2012, when Camille
was 13 years old, she was taken into protective custody after Anthony left her
with her stepgrandmother when he went to jail, but then did not return to pick
her up after he was released. At that
time, Camille disclosed she did not want to live with Anthony any longer because
he had been sexually abusing her since she was eight years old. She also said Anthony physically abused her
and used marijuana. Camille said she had
not seen Paula since she was one year old.
Paula's whereabouts were unknown.
San Diego County Health and Human
Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on Camille's behalf under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (d). Thereafter, Paula was located in Sacramento. At the jurisdictional hearing on February 28, 2012, she appeared by telephone with her attorney. She did not appear at any future
told the Sacramento social worker she drank alcohol daily, used methamphetamine as much
as 10 times each day, used marijuana, experimented with other drugs and was
diagnosed with bipolar
disorder. She said she was
interested in receiving services. She
had lost custody of her oldest child, A.P., in 2000. In 2005, the juvenile court removed another child,
Nelson W., and he was placed with his father.
Paula's parental rights to another child, T.C., were also terminated at
that time. In 2010, Nelson was removed
from his father, and the court denied reunification services to Paula under
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11).
In February 2012, the Sacramento County Juvenile Court declared her
other children, C.C. and K.C., to be dependents of the court and denied
services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11).
jurisdictional hearing was held on April 9, 2012. The court found the
allegations of the petition to be true.
At the disposition hearing on April 16, Camille testified she wanted
Paula to receive reunification services.
She said Paula had missed a big part of her life, she did not want her
to miss more and she would like to get to know her better. She had last seen Paula was when she was one
year old, and the first time she had spoken to her was when she was turning
14. The social worker testified that
considering Paula's history, to offer her reunification services would be
setting up Camille for disappointment and would delay her permanency. The court declared Camille a dependent child
of the court. It continued the hearing
to allow for providing notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (29
U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).
the continued hearing, the social worker reported Camille no longer wished to
remain in her current placement, and the Agency was seeking placement with
maternal relatives. The Agency
determined Camille was not adoptable and there was no one committed to
the continued hearing on May 17, 2012, the court found
the ICWA did not apply. It denied
services to Paula under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), finding it
would not benefit Camille to provide services.
It set another planned permanent living arrangement as the permanent
and Paula contend the court abused its discretion by denying Paula reunification
services. They argue granting services
to her is in Camille's best interests because Camille is not suitable for
adoption or guardianship and she wants Paula to have services.
and Paula do not contend the court erred in finding section 361.5, subdivisions
(b)(10) and (11) applicable. Under
section 361.5, subdivision (c), the trial court was therefore required to deny reunification services unless it found by clear and
convincing evidence that reunification was in Camille's best interests.
court has broad discretion in deciding whether to offer reunification services
under section 361.5, subdivision (c). (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
1220, 1227-1229.) A determination
"committed to the sound discretion
of the juvenile court . . . should not be disturbed on
appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly
established." (In re Stephanie
M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
" 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion
is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.' " (Id. at pp. 318-319.)
and Paula have not shown an abuse of the court's discretion. Camille had not seen Paula since she was one
year old, and she had spoken to her only one time about one month before the
hearing. Paula had five other children
who did not live with her, she had lost parental rights to two of these
children, and the juvenile court had denied reunification services to her
concerning the cases of three of her children.
Paula said she intended to start rehabilitation services, but she continued
to struggle with mental health and substance abuse issues, and only four months
before the hearing she reported that she drank alcohol daily and used
methamphetamine as much as 10 times every day.
She had not visited Camille for 13 years, she had been unsuccessful
in reunification services in the past and there was no evidence she had started
treatment this time.
had appeared by telephone for a hearing in February, but she did not appear in
person or by telephone for any other hearing.
At the disposition hearing, the Agency submitted due diligence reports
documenting the efforts to locate her, but by the time of the disposition
hearing, her whereabouts were unknown.
Paula and Camille had no relationship.
The social worker acknowledged that Camille would like to have a
relationship with Paula, but she believed providing Paula services would set up
Camille for disappointment.
an era of dwindling resources, the state may reasonably focus its reunification
efforts on those families most likely to be reconciled." (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188,
196.) The court did not abuse its
discretion by denying reunification services to Paula.
The order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
 Statutory references
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.