Bobbie R. v. Sup. Ct
Filed 4/4/06 Bobbie R. v. Sup. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| BOBBIE R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, Respondent, TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. |
F049667
(Super. Ct. No. JV5927)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Eric L. Du Temple, Judge.
Patrick M. Angermiller, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, and Kim Knowles, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his son B. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In November 2004, the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) took then six-month-old B. into protective custody after petitioner and B.'s mother were arrested for possession of heroin, possession of drug paraphernalia and child endangerment. Petitioner told the arresting officer that he used heroin for pain control following surgery in 2003 for a broken neck.
The department filed a dependency petition on B.'s behalf, alleging his parents' heroin use placed him at risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for both parents. On January 11, 2005, petitioner signed a case plan that required him to complete a substance abuse program, to drug test as required by the dependency drug court (drug court), to attend Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings and to complete a parenting program. The court set the six-month review hearing for June 21, 2005.
In February 2005, petitioner tested positive for methadone. He subsequently entered and completed inpatient drug treatment.
By the six-month review of dependency, petitioner was reportedly doing well in his treatment plan with one exception. The majority of his urine samples were diluted, suggesting that he was overhydrating himself to cover up drug use.
On June 21, 2005, at the six-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services for B.'s mother but ordered another six months of services for petitioner. Petitioner signed a revised case plan that required him to complete a parenting education program, to participate and show progress in the drug court program, to comply with random drug testing, to show progress in a substance abuse counseling program and to attend three AA/NA meetings weekly. The court set the 12-month review hearing for January 3, 2006.
Over the summer of 2005, petitioner continued to provide diluted urine samples and began to show signs of a relapse. His substance abuse counselor (counselor) noticed that he started leaving group sessions to use the bathroom and staying out for long periods of time. She also saw him close his eyes and nod his head during their group meetings. He repeatedly denied using heroin and on one occasion when his counselor asked to see his arms, he said â€
