legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Sonya L. v. Superior Court

Sonya L. v. Superior Court
08:08:2006

Sonya L. v. Superior Court





Filed 8/7/06 Sonya L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



DIVISION TWO











SONYA L.,


Petitioner,


v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,


Respondent;


SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,


Real Party in Interest.



E040571


(Super.Ct.No. J-206631)


OPINION



ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Robert Fowler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.


David M. Levy for Petitioner.


No appearance for Respondent.


Dennis E. Wagner, Interim County Counsel, and P. Joanne Fenton, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.


1. Introduction


In this petition for extraordinary writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, Sonja L. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services and setting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] Mother claims that, because she and her child would have benefited from reunification services, the court erred in denying services under section 361.5. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the courts findings and order. We deny mother's petition.


2. Factual and Procedural History


Mother has seven children, all of whom are no longer under her care. Two of the children live with their father. Four others were involved in a separate dependency proceeding which resulted in three children being placed in a permanent plan of long-term foster care and one child being freed for adoption.


On February 20, 2006, DCS received a referral that mother's seventh child, J.L., tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Because mother was belligerent toward the hospital staff and was having paranoid delusions, she was taken into temporary custody for psychological evaluation under section 5150.


On February 24, 2006, DCS filed a dependency petition under section 300 with the following allegations: mother had a chronic drug problem; J.L. tested positive for methamphetamine; J.L.'s siblings also had been abused or neglected; and mother's parental rights had been terminated after having failed to reunify with two of her children.


At the detention hearing, although prior reunification efforts had failed in the earlier case, the court initially ordered DCS to provide services. Despite being offered services, mother denied having a drug problem, repeatedly tested positive for drugs, and occasionally refused to test. During one test, mother attempted to use another person's urine as her own. Mother entered a drug treatment program in April, but walked out of the program about a week later. During the month of April, Mother either tested positive or admitted using drugs on five separate occasions.


The social worker recommended that the court deny services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (11), and (13). At the hearing on May 11, 2006, the court found true all the allegations in the dependency petition. The court denied mother reunification services under section 361.5. The court then scheduled the selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26.


3. Denial of Reunification Services


Mother claims that the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services. During the hearing on May 11, 2006, mother admitted that she used methamphetamines and, specifically, that she had used drugs twice since leaving the drug treatment program in late April. She explained, however, that she now attended AA meetings and had taken other steps to become drug free. Mother argues that, because she was willing to admit her drug problem and her need for help, the court should have given her another opportunity to reunify with her children. Mother also argues that reunification was in her child's best interest.


While mother's acknowledgement of her drug problem and stated willingness to take steps to remedy her problem is commendable, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying services under section 361.5. The record reveals that mother had a long history of drug use, that the court had given mother other opportunities to resolve her drug problem, and that mother had been resistant to treatment and uncooperative with those who tried to help her. Unlike other parents who may admit a problem early on and yet fail to maintain a drug-free life, mother has resisted treatment from the beginning and her claimed efforts to change have neither been tested nor demonstrated. Under the circumstances in this case, the court properly found that additional services would not have served the children's best interest.


In enacting section 361.5, the Legislature has recognized that reunification services are useless when the risk of recidivism is high. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.) â€





Description A decision regarding juvenile court's order denying reunification services and setting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale