Brenda L. v. Superior Court

Filed 1/23/07  Brenda L. v. Superior Court CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                        Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Caryl Lee, Judge.  Petition denied.

                        Law Office of J. Michael Hughes and Lawrence A. Aufill, for Petitioner.

                        No Appearance for Respondent.

                        Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Julie J. Agin, Deputy County Counsels, for Real Party in Interest.

                        Law Offices of Harold LaFlamme and Linda M. O'Neil, for the Minors.

*                *                *

                        Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule  8.452, Brenda L. seeks review of the order scheduling a permanency planning hearing for her two daughters, Brianna G. (now age two), and Savannah G. (now age one).  (Welf. & Inst. Code, §  366.26.)[1]  They were the youngest of Brenda's six children--none of whom she has raised.  Brianna was born with spina bifida.  Both children were taken into protective custody at birth and declared dependent children due to Brenda's 22‑ year history of drug use (and attendant lengthy criminal record and frequent incarcerations), and refusal to properly treat and manage her own prenatal health problem with gestational diabetes.  During the reunification period, when not incarcerated, Brenda maintained regular visitation and completed a drug treatment program and a parenting class.  But, she repeatedly missed drug tests and lacked demonstrated parenting capabilities--most significant of which was a lack of interest in or understanding of Brianna's medical needs.  In this proceeding, Brenda challenges the court's findings:  (1) that she failed to make substantial progress in overcoming the problems that led to the children's detention; (2) that she failed to substantially comply or make progress with her service plan; and (3) that reasonable reunification services were offered.  We conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the findings and deny her petition.

FACTS

                        Brenda had a 22‑ year history of using drugs.  Her criminal record (largely involving drug related offenses) was just as long.  She had six children.  The oldest three were teenagers and all were raised by relatives due to Brenda's drug use and frequent incarcerations.  Her son Michael was taken into protective custody and declared a dependent child in June 2004, when he was almost two years old, due to Brenda's substance abuse.  Brenda had previously been receiving family maintenance noncourt services for Michael.  He was placed with an aunt, and Brenda had failed to complete drug rehabilitation or any component of her case plan.  She failed to contact her case worker upon her release from jail in November 2004.

                        On December 23, 2004, a petition was filed to declare newborn Brianna a dependent child due to her parents' failure to protect her and abuse of her sibling.  While pregnant with Brianna, Brenda continued to use methamphetamine and refused medical treatment for her gestational diabetes.  Brianna was born with hypoglycemia and a sacral mass at the base of her spinal cord.  Brianna's father, Fausto G., was aware of Brenda's extended drug history and failed to take action to protect Brianna.[2]

                        At the jurisdictional hearing on February 17, 2005, Brenda and Fausto pled no contest to the petition.  In its reports, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) explained Brenda had admitted using methamphetamine during her pregnancy, but denied having a drug problem.  Her gestational diabetes during pregnancy went uncontrolled, resulting in Brianna being born hypoglycemic.  Brenda was sent to the hospital in early December for diabetes management, but checked herself out against medical advice.  A few weeks later, Brenda's doctor told her to go to the hospital for a â€