Filed 7/10/17 Ana C. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ANA C.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

F075460

(Super. Ct. No. 16CEJ300274-1)


OPINION
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Leanne LeMon, Commissioner.
Beth Ann Lee for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent. C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Ana C. (mother) filed an extraordinary writ petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452), seeking review of the Fresno County Juvenile Court’s (Fresno juvenile court) April 6, 2017, order removing her now nine-year-old son, Donovan, from her custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387) and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends exigent circumstances prevented her from receiving the full benefit of reunification services. Therefore, she argues, the juvenile court’s orders terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing are error. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March, 2015, six-year-old Donovan was taken into protective custody in Humboldt County after law enforcement responded to a motel where he and mother were staying with another woman. The police were contacted because mother and the other woman were yelling and screaming at each other. Mother stated she was in serious danger because she owed money and asked the social worker on scene to take Donovan so that at least he would be safe from “everyone trying to kill [her].”
The juvenile court in Humboldt County (Humboldt juvenile court) adjudged Donovan a dependent child under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), after sustaining allegations that mother’s abuse of controlled substance (including methamphetamine), homelessness, and unaddressed mental health issues placed Donovan at a substantial risk of harm. The court ordered Donovan removed from mother’s custody at a dispositional hearing in April 2015, and ordered reunification services for her. The court set an interim hearing for June 4, 2015, and a six-month review hearing for October 29, 2015.
On June 3, 2015, the Humboldt juvenile court transferred the case to Madera County where Donovan was living with his maternal grandmother. The Madera County Juvenile Court (Madera juvenile court) accepted the case and ordered the Madera County Department of Social Services (Madera department) to review the case plan. The Madera juvenile court noted that mother was living at the Madera Rescue Mission and set a hearing on June 29, 2015, for further proceedings.
The Madera department devised a case plan, requiring mother to complete a mental health assessment and a parenting education class. On July 6, 2015, at a continued hearing, the Madera juvenile court adopted the case plan as amended to include alcohol and other drug counseling. The court set the six-month review hearing for October 29, 2015.
In mid-July 2015, mother entered inpatient treatment at the Light-House Recovery Program (the Light-House) in Fresno. She believed inpatient treatment would enhance her successful rehabilitation because she struggled with outpatient treatment in Humboldt and Madera Counties. Though she resisted following the inpatient house rules, she maintained her sobriety and participated in substance abuse treatment, parenting, and counseling programs.
In early October 2015, Donovan was removed from his grandmother’s home because of sexualized behavior and placed in a foster home in Madera. However, he bullied and inappropriately touched the foster mother’s six-year-old son. Several weeks later, the Madera department placed him in a group home in Clovis for boys ages 6 to 14.
On November 12, 2015, mother was asked to leave the Light-House for not complying with services and continuously breaking the rules of the program. On November 24, mother submitted a hair follicle for testing and the result was positive for methamphetamine. Mother admitted a two-day binge of methamphetamine use by injection. She was encouraged to enter into an inpatient facility but said she was not ready.
On November 30, 2015, at the six-month review hearing, the Madera juvenile court found the Madera department provided mother reasonable reunification services and made reasonable efforts to make it possible to safely return Donovan to her custody. The court also found it would be detrimental to Donovan to return him to mother’s custody, ordered the department to continue providing mother reunification services and set the 12-month review hearing for March 2016.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the Madera department recommended the Madera juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services.
In March 2016, following the 12-month review hearing, the Madera juvenile court found the Madera department provided mother reasonable reunification services and continued them to the 18-month review hearing, which it set for August 2016. The court also approved an updated case plan that required mother to fully comply with inpatient services at Comprehensive Addiction Programs, Inc. (CAP), and comply with mental health treatment recommended by her clinician.
On April 14, 2016, after completing 80 days of residential treatment, mother was terminated from treatment at CAP for engaging in social media and breach of confidentiality. A week later, she entered WestCare residential treatment program and was instructed to complete 40 days in order to complete 120 days of inpatient treatment. On May 26, she was discharged for having Benadryl in her possession. On June 1, she was allowed to return to CAP. On June 21, she was discharged for argumentative behavior. On August 1, she began outpatient treatment at Central California Recovery.
Despite mother’s inability to remain in residential treatment, she maintained her sobriety and enrolled in a sober living program. In addition, she regularly met with a therapist and was compliant with her medication management. She also consistently visited with Donovan whose behavior had improved in that he had fewer and less intense anger outbursts. As a result, the Madera department recommended the Madera juvenile court place him with mother under a plan of family maintenance and transfer the case to Fresno County.
In August 2016, at the 18-month review hearing, the Madera juvenile court found the Madera department provided mother reasonable reunification services and followed the department’s recommendations.
On September 29, 2016, the Fresno juvenile court accepted Donovan’s case and set the matter for a family maintenance review hearing on December 8, 2016.
On December 1, 2016, mother contacted her social worker and admitted relapsing on November 25, while Donovan was with relatives in Modesto during the Thanksgiving holiday. She said she started drinking on Friday, which quickly escalated to smoking “wax,” a highly concentrated form of cannabis. By Sunday, she was smoking methamphetamine. She returned to her Alcoholics Anonymous home group the next day and announced herself as a “new comer.” She had not used since.
On December 8, 2016, the Fresno juvenile court continued family maintenance services and set a review hearing for March 9, 2017.
On December 16, 2016, mother entered Spirit of Woman residential treatment facility with Donovan. However, Donovan’s behavior proved too much for her to handle and interfered with her treatment. He hit and kicked mother, threw objects at the staff, destroyed property, spit on people, and told mother he would kill her if he had a knife. !(CT 578)! An emergency staffing was conducted after mother asked for help.
In January 2017, the Fresno County Department of Social Services filed a supplemental petition alleging family maintenance services had not been effective in protecting Donovan, citing as reasons Donovan’s challenging behavior and mother’s relapse in November 2016, among others.
Following a contested hearing on the supplemental petition in April 2017, the Fresno juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered Donovan removed from mother’s custody, and set a section 366.26 hearing for July 2017.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the service she needed, e.g., inpatient substance abuse treatment, was not available to her until Donovan’s case was transferred to Fresno County. She claims she was unable to start services in Humboldt County before the case was transferred to Madera County and that Madera County lacked the services. She further contends there was clear and convincing evidence that continuing reunification services to her for another six months was in Donovan’s best interest.
Mother essentially argues that she was not provided reasonable services. There are two major problems with her argument. First, mother forfeited the issue. “As a general rule, a party who does not raise an argument below forfeits the argument on appeal.” (In re Abram L. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 452, 462.) The time to raise the issue is at any of the review hearings because the juvenile court is required to assess the reasonableness of reunification services and make a finding. (§ 366.21, subds. (e)(1) & (f)(1).) However, mother never raised the issue. Further, the Madera juvenile court found mother was provided reasonable services at the 6-, 12- and 18-month review hearings and she did not challenge the court’s findings on direct appeal. Consequently, they are final and binding. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1149-1151.)
The second problem with mother’s argument is that the reasonableness of services was not a consideration at the April 2017 setting hearing. Nor was Donovan’s best interest with respect to continuation of services. Rather, the issues were whether family maintenance had been ineffective in protecting Donovan and whether removing custody was appropriate. (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161.) Since mother does not challenge the Fresno juvenile court’s finding that family maintenance was ineffective and/or its order removing Donovan from her custody, she abandoned the issues. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1120.)
We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.