In re A.R.
Angelina R. (Mother) is the mother of twin girls, A.R. and R.R., born in February 2010. She seeks writ intervention by this court to overturn the trial court’s order terminating reunification services and setting an implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] As we shall explain, Mother has not presented a sufficient basis to justify intervention, and we shall deny her petition.[2]
In its answer to Mother’s petition, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) points out, Mother’s petition fails to follow the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, subd. (b), applicable to her petition. It neither includes a factual summary nor refers to relevant case law. The petition does address drug testing. In that respect, Mother claims that some of the drug tests in which positive findings were reported are erroneous because the results actually were negative. She also disputes the trial court’s conclusions that DCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children in that it did not liberalize visitation. Mother was represented by counsel before the trial court, but is representing herself before this court. While we make some allowance as to her failure to fully comply with rule 8.452, we cannot reweigh the evidence. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.) We have reviewed the record before the trial court, and find the challenged ruling is supported by the record and well within the trial court’s discretion.
We briefly summarize some of the major points. A toxicology screen taken of the children at birth was positive for phencyclidine (PCP and benzodiazepine), indicating that Mother had ingested those drugs while pregnant and shortly before birth. Her parental rights with respect to another child, Keith, had been terminated in an earlier dependency proceeding. Mother had a long-standing drug problem, going back as long as 19 years, during which she used methamphetamine, PCP and other drugs. The reunification period had been problematic, to say the least. It had extended over a 27-month period, far beyond the normal, and had involved eight placements. The reunification plan required drug testing. Mother’s record for that was mixed. There were periods during which she regularly reported for testing, and for which the tests were negative. But there also were positive tests, at least one of which was quite recent, and a large number of no-shows. Mother completed some programs, but was uncooperative with DCFS and program personnel at others. A psychologist, Dr. Shah, had provided a favorable evaluation, but asked that it be disregarded because it was entirely based on information provided by Mother, who had been selective and had declined further interviews.
Mother did not physically appear at the hearing at which the court made the ruling from which the present petition is taken. But she did inform her attorney that she wanted to “fire†her. The court conducted a Marsden hearing (based on People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) in which she presented her reasons at an in camera hearing where she appeared by telephone); her request was denied. Her attorney asked the court to take the extraordinary step of ordering further reunification services despite the more than 2-year period during which they already had been furnished. Father’s counsel joined in that request.[3] Counsel for the children and for DCFS each argued against the requested extension, and urged the court to set a hearing for termination of parental rights. The trial court denied Mother’s request and set the case for the section 366.26 hearing. Referring to Mother’s section 388 request for reconsideration of its earlier ruling terminating reunification services, the court summarized its reasons in the following terms:
Comments on In re A.R.