In re Jillian C.
Filed 2/26/13 In re Jillian C. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re In re the Matter of JILLIAN C.,
2d Juv. No. B244968
(Super. Ct.
No. J1395831`)
(Santa
Barbara County)
JULIE G.,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF SANTA BARBARA,
Respondent.
SANTA BARBARA CHILD
PROTECTIVE,
Real Party in Interest.
Julie
G. (mother) seeks extraordinary writ review of a
permanency planning hearing for her daughter, Jillian C. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26.)
found that she had failed to participate regularly and make substantive
progress in her case plan. We deny the
petition.
Factual and Procedural
Background
Daughter was born in September 2009. In February 2012 Child Welfare Services (CWS)
filed a section 300 dependency petition
on her behalf. The petition alleged
that, because of substance abuse, the parents were unable to care for
daughter. In the
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, CWS stated: "[M]other has used marijuana
on a near daily basis since she was a young teenager and she has used
methamphetamine, cocaine, and various other drugs on and off. . . . [M]other reported that she uses drugs as a
coping skill to deal with stress."
On
March 29, 2012, the
juvenile court sustained the petition and declared daughter a dependent
child. The court ordered that daughter
be removed from the parents' physical custody and that CWS provide
reunification services. Mother's case
plan required, inter alia, that she (1) "demonstrate her ability to live
free from drug dependency by consistently testing negative for all substances,
regularly engaging in substance abuse treatment, and obtaining a sponsor";
and (2) "demonstrate her ability and willingness to have custody of her
child by obtaining and maintaining a legal, verifiable source of income and
appropriate housing."
Prior
to the six-month review hearing, CWS recommended that reunification services be
terminated and that the matter be set for a permanency planning hearing
pursuant to section 366.26. The matter
was continued to November 1, 2012,
for a contested review hearing.
At
the hearing, the court received CWS's Status Review Report filed on September 27, 2012. In the report CWS concluded that mother had
not complied with the case plan's requirement that she avoid illegal drugs and
engage in substance abuse treatment. CWS
noted: On March 13, 2012,
mother enrolled in an inpatient treatment program at Recovery
Way. She
was placed on probation for using spice (synthetic marijuana). On May
10, 2012, mother was discharged from the inpatient program for
violating rules while she was on probation.
Mother enrolled in a Recovery Way
outpatient program. On June
13, 2012, mother admitted using spice and alcohol. Mother was discharged from the outpatient
program and referred to a "detox" program. She was discharged from the detox program for
rule violations. Mother entered another
detox program. Upon release from that
program on June 30, 2012,
she enrolled in an outpatient treatment program at Recovery
Way. She
made progress in the outpatient program, and in July 2012 she reentered the
inpatient program. But on September 6, 2012, she was discharged
from the inpatient program.
A report from the
provider of the inpatient program explained why she had been discharged:
"With repeated support and direction from staff, [mother's] progress in
treatment continues to be stunted by her chronic attempts to staff split, blame
others and not take responsibility for her past and current negative attitudes
and behavior." After her discharge,
mother entered an outpatient program at Coast
Valley.
In the Status
Review Report, CWS also concluded that mother had failed to comply with the
case plan's requirement that she maintain a legal, verifiable source of income
and appropriate housing. CWS noted that
mother was unemployed, that her unemployment benefits had "ended sometime
in September [2012] leaving [her] without an income," and that she was
living in a homeless shelter.
At
the hearing, the social worker testified as follows: Mother's drug tests have
all been negative. She missed one test
on May 26, 2012. After her September 6, 2012 discharge from the Recovery
Way inpatient program, mother enrolled in other
programs and has complied with these programs.
Mother applied for low-income housing and said that "she might have
a job with a pizza place."
Mother
testified that she had applied for a two-bedroom apartment. Her application had been conditionally
approved. The condition was that she
provide proof of employment. According
to mother, she had the requisite proof: "I package samples for a health
company up at the bridge house and I get paid cash."
After
considering the evidence, the juvenile court declared: "I can't find that
[the parents have] participated regularly and made substantive
progress." "I find that both
the mother's and father's progress has been minimal in this instance."
If a child is
under the age of three at the time of initial removal from a parent and the
juvenile court finds by clear and
convincing evidence at the six-month review hearing "that the parent
failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court
ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section
366.26 within 120 days."
(§ 366.21, sub. (e).) We
review for substantial evidence the juvenile court's finding that mother failed
to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the case plan.
(Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1341;
Sheila S. v.
Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872,
880-881.) "We must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to [CWS] and indulge all legitimate and reasonable
inferences to uphold the [finding].
[Citation.]" (Mark N. v.
Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.)
Substantial Evidence Supports
the Juvenile Court's Finding
Substantial
evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that mother failed to
participate regularly and make substantive progress in the treatment of her
drug dependency. While in the inpatient
treatment program at Recovery Way, she was placed on probation for using
spice. She was subsequently discharged
for rule violations. Mother then entered
a Recovery Way outpatient program, but was discharged for using spice and
alcohol. Mother entered a detox program,
but was discharged for rule violations.
Upon release from another detox program, she reentered Recovery Way's
inpatient program but was discharged because her progress was "stunted by
her chronic attempts to staff split, blame others and not take responsibility
for her past and current negative attitudes and behavior."
alcohol counselor and from the doctor that did the psych[ological] eval[uation]
is that [mother] needed inpatient treatment and she's been unable to
successfully complete that." Mother
testified that her case plan required six months of inpatient treatment, but
she had completed only four months.
Substantial
evidence also supports the juvenile court's finding that mother failed to
participate regularly and make substantive progress toward the case plan
objective of "obtaining and maintaining a legal, verifiable source of
income and appropriate housing."
Mother was living in a homeless shelter.
Although mother testified that she was employed by "a health
company up at the bridge house," she provided no proof of employment and
did not identify her employer by name.
The social worker contradicted mother's testimony. The social worker testified: "I recently
spoke with [mother] and she said she might have a job with a pizza place."
Disposition
The
petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
>
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Richard R. Martinez, for
Petitioner.
No appearance for
Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall,
County Counsel, County of Santa Barbara, Sarah A. McElhinney, Deputy, for Real
Party I Interest.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Mother's compliance with other drug programs
after September 6, 2012 (ante p. 3),
is irrelevant to the trial court's decision to terminate reunification. She failed at all programs prior
thereto.
