Alina D. v. Superior Court

Filed 5/23/06 Alina D. v. Superior Court CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ALINA D.,

Petitioner, A113174

v. (Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. J0500791)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY,

Respondent;

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN

AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

_______________________________________/

Alina D.^[1] has filed a petition for a writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1,^[2] challenging the juvenile court's decision to set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,^[3] to consider whether her parental rights as to her daughter Tatiana should be terminated. Alina contends the court's ruling that she was offered reasonable reunification services is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and will deny the petition.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Alina gave birth to Tatiana in May 2003. Tatiana apparently lived with her father Frederick T. originally; however, on April 19, 2005, Frederick abandoned the infant leaving her with a friend. The friend contacted child protection authorities who investigated the matter. They learned Alina and Frederick both used drugs and that Frederick had abused Tatiana physically.

On April 27, 2005, a petition was filed alleging Tatiana was a dependent child within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). As amended, and as is relevant here, the petition alleged Alina had a substance abuse problem that impaired her ability to care for Tatiana, that she knew about but failed to protect Tatiana from Frederick's physical abuse, and that she had not provided Tatiana with consistent care or support. On June 29, 2005, the court found the allegations of the petition to be true.

At disposition, the court adopted a reunification plan for Alina. Among other things, the plan required Alina to:

--Obtain resources to meet Tatiana's needs and to provide her with a safe home;

--Keep in regular contact with her social worker and demonstrate an ability to care for Tatiana;

--Comply with all orders of the court;

--Maintain a relationship with Tatiana by following the conditions of the visitation plan;

--Show an ability and willingness to have custody of Tatiana;

--Stay sober;

--Stay free from illegal drugs; and

--Not break any law.

In addition, the plan required Alina to obtain counseling, to successfully complete a parenting education class, to participate in and complete a substance abuse program, and to participate in drug and alcohol testing.

A six-month review hearing was scheduled for December 2005. The report prepared for that hearing showed Alina had failed to comply with any aspect of her reunification plan. According to the report, Alina:

--Did not demonstrate that she was able to provide a safe home for Tatiana;

--Did not keep in regular contact with her social worker;

--Failed to comply with the court's orders. Although Alina did visit Tatiana a few times, the visits were not regular and they had to be terminated because Alina failed to comply with the department's visitation rules;

--Did not maintain a relationship with Tatiana. Alina did not telephone the child nor did she contact the social worker for any information about her;

--Failed to complete a parenting class;

--Failed to participate in a drug or alcohol program;

--Failed to obtain counseling;

--Failed to participate in drug and alcohol testing; and

--Was unable to avoid legal problems. In fact, in May 2005 Alina was arrested on a warrant.

Alina testified at the review hearing. She claimed the social workers who had been assigned to her case had not done enough to help her comply with her reunification plan. Counsel for Alina reiterated that theme in his argument to the court.

Counsel for Tatiana strongly disputed that argument. â€