Celia R. v. Superior Court
Filed 4/24/06 Celia R. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
(Super.Ct.Nos. J-205351 &
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. David S. Cohn, Judge. Petition denied.
Gloria Kim-Chung for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Dawn Stafford, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
In this petition for extraordinary writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, Celia R. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services and setting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother claims that the trial court erred in finding that she was not entitled to reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (11), and (13). Because the record reveals substantial evidence to support the court's findings, we deny mother's petition.
2. Factual and Procedural History
In early December of 2005, mother gave birth to twins Jeanna R. and Michael R. Both tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother admitted using methamphetamine the day before the children's births.
Mother had numerous prior contacts with the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS) as a result of her drug use and her neglect of her children. Mother had three other children, a daughter born in 2000, a son born in 2002, and another daughter born in 2004. All three children tested positive for marijuana or methamphetamine at birth. Mother also cared for the children's half-sister. In 2002, DCS offered voluntary family maintenance services, but mother declined the services. In 2003, based on allegations of neglect, mother's eldest daughter was removed and DCS again offered referrals for services. The eldest daughter subsequently was placed in the legal custody of her maternal grandmother. In 2004, DCS removed the other children from parental custody. Mother failed to complete her reunification plan and failed to comply with her drug tests. The juvenile court terminated parental rights as to mother's two remaining children.
On December 12, 2005, DCS filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The petition included the following allegations: both Jeanna and Michael tested positive for drugs at birth; mother's past and present drug use impairs her ability to parent her children; mother has two other children who have suffered severe neglect and have been removed because of her drug use.
At the jurisdictional hearing on February 10, 2006, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true. At the close of the dispositional hearing on February 24, 2006, the court denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11), and (13).
The court then scheduled the selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26.
Mother claims that the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b), subsections (10), (11), and (13). Mother acknowledges her chronic drug problem. She also acknowledges that she failed to reunify with the children's older siblings and that her parental rights had been terminated. Mother challenges only the court's finding that she has failed to make reasonable efforts to resolve the problems leading to the children's removal.
Section 361.5, subdivision (b), lists the extraordinary circumstances that justify the denial of reunification services. (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 753.) Despite the importance of reunification services in the dependency system, the Legislature has carved out exceptions where it would be fruitless to provide additional services because of the high risk of recidivism. (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 467; In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b) specifically provides: