Angela M. v. Superior Court
Filed 6/4/13
Angela M. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ANGELA
M.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
KINGS COUNTY,
Respondent;
KINGS COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in Interest.
F066923
(Super. Ct. No. 11JD0055)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jennifer Giuliani, Judge.
Angela M.,
in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
Colleen
Carlson, County Counsel, and Carrie
Woolley, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Angela M. in propria persona seeks an
rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 18-month
review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a))
section 366.26 hearing as to her five-year-old son Jordan, three-year-old son
Hunter and one-year-old son Brett. We
deny the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Angela is
the mother of three young sons, Jordan, Hunter and Brett, the subjects of this
writ petition. Angela suffers from
The
(agency) first became aware of Angela and the children in June 2011. At that time, Angela was living in a shelter
with Jordan and Hunter and was pregnant with Brett and due to deliver. She was not taking her psychotropic
medication because of her pregnancy.
In early
June 2011, hospital staff raised concerns for the children’s well-being when
Angela presented several times with then three-year-old Jordan and 15-month-old
Hunter asking to be induced. Her
behavior was reportedly erratic, bizarre and grandiose and the children, though
healthy, were dirty. The police elected
not to put a protective hold on the children at that time.
In late
June 2011, the agency received a report that Jordan was in sickle cell crisis
and that it could be life-threatening.
His heart was enlarged, his chest congested and he had a fever. He was also having difficulty breathing and
was given oxygen. The reporting party
(RP) stated that Jordan needed to be transferred to a higher level facility and
that an ambulance had been waiting for an hour to transport him, but Angela
refused to let the ambulance leave without her.
According to the RP, Angela was talking to walls, acting strangely by
avoiding eye contact and accusing the hospital staff of trying to harm the
children. Finally, after three and a
half hours Jordan was taken to the hospital and admitted. The doctor noted that Angela had not given
Jordan his prophylactic antibiotics for the prior month. She said she could not afford Jordan’s
medication.
In August
2011, the agency filed a dependency petition on behalf of Jordan, Hunter and
newborn Brett alleging Angela’s bipolar disorder placed the children at risk of
harm. In support of the allegation, the
agency cited Angela’s failure to treat her bipolar disorder and her erratic
behavior that placed Jordan’s life at risk by postponing medical treatment.
In
September 2011, the juvenile court ordered the children detained. In January 2012, the juvenile court exercised
its dependency jurisdiction and ordered Angela to participate in mental health
services and complete a parenting program.
The children were placed together in foster care.
By the
18-month review hearing in March 2013, Angela had completely complied with her
services plan. Most notably, she
attended one-on-one parenting classes for a year, participated in therapy and
took her medication. She also had a
one-bedroom apartment where she had been living for a year.
However,
despite Angela’s best efforts, the agency did not believe she could safely
parent the children. Chief among its
concerns were Angela’s inability to appreciate and respond to dangerous
situations and the children’s lack of a bond to her. Hunter, in particular, tried to avoid visits
with Angela. According to the foster
mother, he begged her not to make him go.
Once there, Hunter became nauseous each time and sometimes vomited when
he entered her home. When the visits were
over, Jordan and Hunter were eager to leave and ran to the county vehicle.
In its
report for the 18-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile
court terminate Angela’s reunification services and set a section 366.26
hearing.
Angela, her
social worker, and the children’s foster mother testified at the contested
18-month review hearing after which the juvenile court heard argument and
issued its rulings. The juvenile court
commended Angela on her progress but found that it would be detrimental to
return the children to her custody. The
juvenile court also found that the whereabouts of Jordan and Hunter’s fathers
were unknown and that the identity of Brett’s father was unknown. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Angela contends, without citation to the record, the social
workers falsely reported her home was “filthy†and she “smoked weed.†She further contends one of the social
workers told her, “I lied to the judge to make you go to court.†Thus, she argues, the juvenile court’s rulings
issued at the 18-month review hearing were error. We disagree.
At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court must
decide whether it is safe to return the child to the parent’s custody or
whether
substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety,
protection or well-being. (§ 366.22,
subd. (a).) If the
juvenile court does not return the child to parental custody, it must set a
section 366.26 hearing barring circumstances not present here.
& (b).)
In assessing the risk of
the juvenile court considers the extent to which the parent participated and
made progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) However, ultimately, the court’s decision
hinges on whether the child would be safe in parental custody. (In re
Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141-1142.)
In this case, the juvenile court
acknowledged Angela’s progress but determined it could not return Angela’s sons
to her because it was not safe. It was
not safe because Angela did not understand how her conduct endangered the
children and because they were not bonded to her.
Since Angela does not cite to the record, we cannot address
the statements she attributes to the social workers. Nevertheless, we find substantial evidence on
this record to support the juvenile court’s determination that it would be
detrimental to return the children to Angela’s custody. Consequently, we affirm its orders
terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ
is denied. This opinion is final
forthwith as to this court.
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
