Heather G. v. Super

Filed 2/16/06 Heather G. v. Super. Ct. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Heather G., the mother of the child Charlotte G., files this petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders of the juvenile court in setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] (§ 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 38 & 38.1.) Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in ordering a bypass of reunification services at the contested dispositional hearing. Specifically, mother maintains that there was no evidence to support a bypass of reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) since there was no evidence that she had not made a reasonable effort to treat her mental health problems that led to the removal of the child's siblings in prior dependency proceedings. We find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings and orders and deny the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 2, 2005, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (the Department) filed a petition as to the child Charlotte G. (born December 2004), pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] and (j) [abuse of sibling]. The petition, as subsequently amended, alleged that the child had been taken into protective custody on February 10, 2005, after police placed mother on a psychiatric hold. Mother allegedly had a history of mental illness and substance abuse and had threatened to harm herself and the child. The Department released the child to the presumed father, Fabian G.; however, the child was placed into protective custody again on February 28, 2005, after the child's babysitter reported that the presumed father had left the child with her, claiming that he did not want the child and was not her biological father. The babysitter also reported that mother had threatened to kill the babysitter, the child, and herself. Mother also was a registered narcotics offender and was on probation for drug-related offenses.

In addition, the child's half-sibling, Juan R. (born October 1999), was made a dependent of the court in 2000 due to mother's substance abuse and emotional instability. Mother failed to reunify with Juan and her reunification services were terminated in 2001, and her parental rights were terminated in 2002. Another half-sibling, Damian M. (born May 2003), also was made a dependent of the court in 2003, and reunification services were bypassed in November 2003 because of mother's substance abuse and emotional instability. Mother's parental rights as to Damian were terminated in October 2004.

In his jurisdictional/dispositional report, prepared in March 2005, the social worker confirmed the allegations of the amended petition. The social worker reported that the child was placed into protective custody because of mother's unstable mental condition and that there were concerns that mother's mental status had not improved since termination of her parental rights as to the two older half-siblings. The social worker's report also included a report from mother's therapist, Steve Darrow, LCSW (licensed clinical social worker), discussing her current treatment.[2] The social worker recommended that the juvenile court take jurisdiction over the child, but continue the dispositional hearing pending receipt of a psychological evaluation of mother and paternity test results of the presumed father.[3]

In an addendum dated April 5, 2005, the social worker recommended that the child be declared a dependent of the court with out-of-home placement and that reunification services be bypassed pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) [prior termination of reunification services as to sibling], (11) [prior termination of parental rights], and (13) [chronic alcohol or drug abuse history]. Paternity testing also showed that Fabian G. was not the biological father of the child, and mother identified Celso S. as an alleged father.

The juvenile court conducted a contested jurisdictional hearing over several days in April and May 2005. On May 31, 2005, the juvenile court found the allegations of the amended petition true, ordered two psychological evaluations of mother, and continued the matter for a dispositional hearing on August 2, 2005.

In a psychological evaluation, dated June 22, 2005, Peter J. Berman, Ph.D., reported that mother suffered from features of posttraumatic stress disorder, amphetamine abuse (in sustained full remission), cannabis abuse (in sustained full remission), a partner relational problem, and a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with borderline and antisocial features. Dr. Berman reported that mother had a chronic history of mental illness, conflicted relationships with men, and a history of substance abuse. Dr. Berman also noted that mother had not participated in her treatment plans in the past, that it was likely that she would require more than six months to be able to successfully reunify with the child, and that the prognosis in the case was guarded.

In a psychological report, dated July 29, 2005, Faren R. Akins, Ph.D., reported that mother suffered from amphetamine dependence with physiological dependence (in sustained full remission) and from major depressive disorder, recurrent, with postpartum onset. Dr. Akins also reported that mother's drug dependence was not presently at a stage that would interfere with her ability to properly care for the child and that her depressive episodes appeared to be under control at that time, but she needed to be monitored and supervised for psychotropic medications and needed to be more consistent in participating in therapy. Dr. Akins believed that mother was capable of making good use of reunification services, but it remained to be seen whether she would do so. The prognosis was guarded. At present, mother was not suicidal nor immediately at risk to harm herself, but she was prone to depressive states and needed the assistance of medication and psychotherapeutic interventions to ensure that she was not at-risk in the long-term. Dr. Akins recommended that mother engage in consistent treatment with her current therapist, Mr. Darrow, continue participating in Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous (NA/AA) and work with a sponsor, and affiliate with a parental support group. Dr. Akins also recommended that she coordinate with Mr. Darrow a referral to a psychiatrist for medication evaluation, prescription, monitoring, and supervision, with the psychiatrist and Mr. Darrow regularly consulting regarding her condition while developing a regime that would be most beneficial.

In an addendum dated August 2, 2005, the social worker stated that Mr. Darrow called him on July 27, 2005, to report that mother last saw him on May 17, 2005, and that his counseling sessions with mother had been â€