In re L.D.
Filed 9/6/12 In re L.D. CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
In re L.D. et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B237124
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK35692)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court of
County, Stephen Marpet, Referee. Affirmed.
Janette
Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
John F.
Krattli, Acting County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and
Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * * *
During
A.F.’s (mother’s) long history with children in the dependency system, she
received almost $15,000 in housing assistance and received
1997. Yet, mother demonstrates no
ability to care for her youngest seven children – L.D., Le.R., Ni.R., I.R.,
El.R., Em.R., and J.R. (collectively children) – who suffered from a multitude
of ailments as a result of mother’s neglect.
This appeal
is from the denial of mother’s reunification services as to L.D., I.R., El.R.,
Em.R., and J.R.
name="_ftnref2" title="">
affirm.
We summarize
only those facts germane to the instant appeal.
L.D., Le.R.,
and Ni.R., along with their older sister Na.R., became dependents in 2004, as a
result of mother’s substance abuse and inability to care for them. They were initially returned to mother’s
custody, but then Na.R. was removed from mother’s care when she acted out
sexually. Jurisdiction over Na.R. had
not terminated prior to Na.R.’s removal from mother’s custody. Mother failed to reunify with Na.R. Mother did not appear at the hearing on
terminating her reunification services over Na.R.
The Los
Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition in 2010 and two amended
petitions in 2010 and 2011 naming the children as dependents. As subsequently sustained, the petitions
alleged: (1) mother failed to obtain
immediate medical care for L.D. when his head was bleeding; (2) mother has a
history of substance abuse and currently abuses methamphetamine and alcohol;
(3) mother allowed L.D., Le.R., and Ni.R. to cross a busy intersection
without supervision; (4) mother failed to obtain medical treatment for Le.R.,
I.R., and El.R. who suffered from scabies and head lice; (5) mother failed to
obtain medical treatment for El.R. who suffered from an upper respiratory
infection and I.R. who suffered from an upper respiratory infection and a viral
infection; (6) mother failed to obtain medical treatment for Em.R. and J.R. who
suffered from bronchiolitis; and (7) mother failed to obtain treatment for
Em.R. and J.R. who had diaper rashes and dried feces on their bodies and who
were not current in their immunizations.
Notwithstanding
mother’s long history with children in the dependency system, she demonstrated
no improvement in overcoming her substance abuse. Mother generally refused to report for random
drug testing the juvenile court had ordered her to attend, and there was
evidence that she used another person’s urine when she submitted to the
tests. Additionally, there was evidence
that mother used her welfare assistance funds to purchase drugs, and was
observed to be under the influence “on several occasions.” A police report dated October 5, 2010, indicated that mother admitted using methamphetamine
two weeks earlier. An unrelated child,
who stayed with mother, observed men leave mother’s room with what he believed
to be narcotics and observed mother selling drugs.
boyfriend testified that mother used heroin in the last three years.
In May 2011,
mother told her landlord that she was planning to go purchase milk for the
children. Mother did not return for four
days. Mother did not arrange for anyone
to supervise the children during her absence.
On July 28, 2011, DCFS recommended no reunification services for
mother. At a hearing August 4, mother
did not appear, but her counsel acknowledged that DCFS had requested no
reunification services. DCFS’s counsel
indicated that he had advised mother’s counsel that reunification services were
not warranted because mother failed to reunify with Na.R. On August 10, DCFS mailed notice of the
recommendation to mother.
On August 19, 2011, the court sustained the petitions and denied mother
reunification services. With respect to
Le.R. and Ni.R. the court set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26.
Mother
demonstrates no error in the order denying her reunification services. It is undisputed that the juvenile court may
deny a parent reunification services when that parent has failed to reunify
with a sibling of the child and the parent has not subsequently made reasonable
efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10).) “The ‘no reasonable effort’ clause provides a
means of mitigating a harsh rule that would allow the court to deny services
based only upon the parent’s prior failure to reunify with the child’s sibling
‘when the parent had in fact, in the meantime, worked toward correcting the
underlying problems.’ [Citation.]” (Cheryl P.
v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 97.) For example, a parent may make a reasonable
effort to treat a drug problem without curing the problem. (Ibid.)
Mother
argues that no substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that
she failed to make a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to
Na.R.’s removal. Mother argues that the
basis of removal of the children is not the same as the removal of Na.R. We disagree.
Although
Na.R. ultimately was removed because she was acting out sexually, her initial
removal was the result of mother’s substance abuse and neglect, and
jurisdiction on this basis had not terminated.
not made a reasonable effort to treat her substance abuse that led to the
initial removal of Na.R. (§ 361.5, subd.
(b)(10).) Mother repeatedly ignored the
order to submit to random drug testing and when she did report, she apparently
used urine from other sources. Moreover,
she admitted to police that she had used methamphetamine and her boyfriend
testified that she used heroin with him.
Mother
correctly points out that there was only a month period between her failure to
reunify with Na.R. and the denial of her reunification services over the
children. Mother argues that is the only
relevant time period to consider.
Assuming the correctness of her argument, mother fails to identify any
conduct during that time period demonstrating an effort to treat the problems
that led to Na.R.’s removal. The
evidence before the court supported only the finding that mother failed to
address her substance abuse problems both prior to and after Na.R.’s
removal. There was no evidence that
mother took any concrete steps to address her substance abuse problem either
prior to her failure to reunify with Na.R. or subsequent to her failure to
reunify with Na.R.
Mother’s
claim that reunification services were in the children’s best interest is not
persuasive. Contrary to mother’s
argument, there was no “reasonable basis to conclude that mother’s relationship
with her seven children” could be saved.
Mother had not benefitted from any of the prior reunification services
afforded to her. As previously detailed,
she continued to severely neglect her children and failed to address her
longstanding substance abuse problem.
The children, who were old enough to give statements, were thankful for
their placements outside of mother’s custody because, among other reasons, they
no longer had to “walk[] the streets.”
Finally,
mother’s contention that the order must be reversed because she was not
provided sufficient notice of DCFS’s recommendation to deny her reunification
services lacks merit. DCFS substantially
complied with statutory requirements by recommending no reunification in its
July 28, 2011 report and mailing mother notice August 10, 2011.
arguing substantial compliance is insufficient, she fails to show that she
suffered prejudice from the lack of strict compliance. She states that she “could have appeared . .
. and presented evidence,” but she identifies no evidence that would have
supported a claim the juvenile court should have awarded her reunification
services.
The order
denying mother reunification services with respect to L.D., I.R., El.R., Em.R.,
and J.R. is affirmed.
FLIER,
J.
We concur:
BIGELOW,
P. J.
GRIMES,
J.
February 1999, Le.R. was born in November 2000, Ni.R. was born in May 2002,
I.R. was born in August 2007, El.R. was born in November 2008, J.R. and Em.R.
were born in March 2010. Mother has
three other children, Na.R., with whom she failed to reunify, A.F. and T.F.,
who live with mother’s parents.
did not appeal from the order denying reunification services to Le.R. and
Ni.R. That order was not appealable
because the court set a permanency planning hearing with respect to them at the
same time as it denied reunification services.
(In re Catherine S. (1991) 230
Cal.App.3d 1253, 1256 [an order denying reunification services and setting a
permanency planning hearing is not appealable].)
