M.P. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 1/27/10 M.P. v. Super. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
M.P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent; MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. | F058734 (Super. Ct. No. JV27855) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Harry L. Jacobs, Commissioner.
M.P., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and James B. Tarhalla, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Wiseman, J., and Poochigian, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts orders issued at a contested 6-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to her two minor sons. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In September 2008, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over petitioners then three- and two-year-old sons and left them in her custody subject to court-ordered supervision because she abused drugs and alcohol and exposed the children to domestic violence. Petitioner was provided family maintenance services consisting of substance abuse and mental health services and parenting education.
However, family maintenance proved to be ineffective in protecting the children and in February 2009, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) removed the children from petitioners custody after she and the childrens father were arrested following a dispute. The agency filed a supplemental petition on the childrens behalf and placed them together in foster care.
In March 2009, the juvenile court conducted a dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition, ordered reunification services for both parents, and advised them that reunification services could be terminated within six months if the parents failed to comply. Petitioners services plan required her to participate in mental health counseling, outpatient substance abuse treatment, and random drug testing. With respect to substance abuse treatment, the plan required petitioner to complete a 12-step recovery program such as Celebrate Recovery and attend Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings at least weekly. In March 2009, petitioner signed her court-ordered case plan.
Over the ensuing six months, petitioner participated in random drug testing and tested negative but did not comply with the mental health and substance abuse treatment components of her case plan. She missed three appointments with her psychiatrist who refused to schedule any further appointments. In addition, though she claimed to be attending AA/NA meetings at Celebrate Recovery, she failed to turn in sign-in sheets to verify her attendance there. She was also homeless. In light of petitioners failure to benefit from family maintenance and family reunification services, the agency recommended the court terminate her services and proceed to permanency planning.
Petitioner challenged the agencys recommendation and, in October 2009, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing. Petitioner testified she relapsed in January 2009 and started attending Celebrate Recovery in March 2009. However, she stopped attending in August 2009 after she became homeless. In September 2009, she entered a year-long residential drug treatment program. She further testified she had been attending AA/NA meetings at least once a week on and off for the prior year. She had a sponsor and was working on step one of the 12-step program, explaining she had only begun to work on the program.
At the conclusion of testimony and argument, the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.[2]
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends she completed her case plan requirements and then some. She cites her participation in a 12-month faith-based program (a reference to the residential drug treatment program she began in September 2009), her completion of three parenting classes, and her negative results on all urine and hair follicle drug screens. Further, she essentially contends, if the juvenile court did not understand how much she had progressed, it was because she was not allowed to explain her situation in court, including the fact the agency assigned numerous caseworkers to her, none of whom were aware of her case plan requirements. The appellate record does not support petitioners claims.
First, there is no evidence there were numerous caseworkers assigned to petitioners case. The record does reflect that two different caseworkers authored the dispositional report and the six-month status review. Both documents detail the components of petitioners case plan, thus refuting her claim they were unaware of them. However, more importantly, petitioner was at all times aware of what was required of her. It is undisputed she signed her case plan in March 2009.
Secondly, if petitioner was having difficulty complying with her case plan, she had ample opportunity to bring that to the courts attention through her testimony. However, she did not. Rather, she testified as to the state of her progress as of the hearing.
Finally, in rendering its decision at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court can only rely on the evidence before it. In this case, the juvenile court found petitioner had not adequately utilized the services provided nor resolved the issue requiring her childrens removal. As the court advised petitioner at the dispositional hearing, the consequence would be termination of reunification services.
On appeal, petitioner bears the burden of showing that the juvenile courts findings and orders are not supported by the evidence. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) On this record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts determination petitioner did not regularly participate in or make substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan. Accordingly, we affirm its orders terminating petitioners reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing and we deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Father did not file a writ petition.
