In re Matthew M.

























Filed 9/29/10 In re Matthew M. CA2/3









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE




>

In re MATTHEW M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CINDY V., Defendant and Appellant.

B223593 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK51734)

APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County,

Valerie Skeba, Referee.
Affirmed.

Matthew I.
Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea
Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and
Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



>_________________________

INTRODUCTION

Mother
Cindy V. (Mother) appeals orders summarily denying her petition brought
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,[1] and terminating parental rights to her child, Matthew
M. To obtain a hearing on a section 388
petition seeking to change, modify, or set aside a previous dependency court
order, a parent must show that there is a change of circumstances or new
evidence, and that setting aside or modifying the prior order would be in the
child's best interests. We conclude that
the petition did not provide new evidence that setting aside the order
terminating family reunification services
to Mother would be in Matthew's best interests, and that summary denial of
Mother's section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm that order and the order
terminating parental rights.

FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Detention: In November 2008, a CSW responded to a
referral from Hollywood
Presbyterian
Hospital
regarding allegations of general neglect of two-day-old Matthew M. by his
mother, Cindy V. (Mother), age 28.
Mother had tested positive for cocaine.
Mother also had an extensive history of cocaine abuse, which had
resulted in removal of two older children, and a criminal history that included
imprisonment for drug possession in 2004 and 2006 and for prostitution in 2003.

Mother admitted using cocaine since age 18, and smoking
cocaine six times during the last trimester of her pregnancy with Matthew. Mother was aware that exposing Matthew to
drugs could harm him and result in medical complications. Mother had suffered from depression in the
past, currently received therapy weekly, and was prescribed medication. She had not informed her therapist of her
drug use. Father Ramon M. appeared to
have no knowledge of Mother's drug use.

None of Mother's three eldest children were in her
care. Mother stated that her eldest
child, Juan, was removed from her care and was in the care of his father. Mother claimed to have lost contact with
him. Eight-year-old Ashley V. was
detained from Mother in 2003 due to general neglect, after Ashley was observed
walking unsupervised wearing only a diaper.
Police were called, and they found Mother inside a van at the
location. Mother was under the influence
and admitting to having just smoked rock cocaine. Mother failed to reunify and Ashley was
adopted in 2006. Three-year-old Joey M.
was detained from Mother in September 2007.
Mother and Joey were homeless and Mother was mentally unstable and had a
positive cocaine toxicology report during the investigation. Mother failed to reunify and Joey was placed
in his father's care.

Matthew was detained and placed in foster care on November 27, 2008.

On December
3, 2008, the juvenile court found that a prima
facie case for detaining Matthew as a person described by section 300,
subdivision (b) was established, and ordered Matthew detained in Shelter
Care. The juvenile court ordered the
DCFS to provide family reunification services to the parents and to Matthew.

Petition: The DCFS filed a section 300 petition,
alleging that Matthew had suffered, or there was a substantial risk that he
would suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of Mother's failure
or inability to supervise or protect him adequately, as a result of Father's
willful or negligent failure to supervise or protect Matthew adequately from
Mother's conduct, and by Mother's inability to provide regular care due to her
mental illness or substance abuse.

Adjudication and
Disposition: The DCFS reported
additional facts concerning Mother's drug abuse. Mother stated that crack cocaine was her drug
of choice, that she began using cocaine when she was 18 years old, and that she
used it very frequently during 10 years of substance abuse. Mother stated that she tended to use cocaine
when she had problems, sometimes spent $300 a week for cocaine but at other
times she could get it free. To maintain
her drug use, Mother stated that she engaged in prostitution and borrowed
money. She last prostituted about seven
months earlier.

Mother admitted using crack cocaine while pregnant with
Matthew. She received pre-natal care,
but did not tell her doctors she was using drugs. She told Father that she formerly used drugs,
but did not inform him she was using crack cocaine during their
relationship. Mother stated that Father
was unaware of her drug use.

On December
17, 2008, Mother declined referrals for drug
inpatient programs and said she would continue attending her outpatient
substance abuse program and individual counseling at People in Progress. As of February 10, 2009, however,
Mother was discharged from People in Progress on January 22, 2009,
when she failed to attend or to call to report that she would no longer be
attending. Mother scheduled an
appointment with the Homeless Healthcare--Community Assessment Services Center program, but
Mother did not attend as she had been ill.
Mother did appear at a second appointment on February 5, 2009,
and was referred for an intake appointment at Impact, a residential treatment
center, on February
9, 2009.
Mother did not attend that appointment, however, and called an Impact
staff member to tell him she was sick.
As of February
10, 2009, Mother had not contacted the DCFS.

In the February 11, 2009, dispositional hearing, the
juvenile court declared Matthew a dependent child of the court under section
300, subdivision (b), removed custody from the parents and placed it with the
DCFS for suitable placement, ordered no family reunification services for
Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (12), and ordered
family reunification services for Father only.
Mother and Father were ordered to have monitored visits.

Six-Month Review
Hearing: Matthew continued placement
in foster care, and was healthy and well cared for. Matthew's physical and cognitive development
were age appropriate. Matthew called his
foster parent â€