Charlie S. v. Superior Court
Filed 3/21/06 Charlie S. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| CHARLIE S. et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | E039477 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ103069) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Petitions denied.
David A. Wiesen for Petitioner Charlie S.; Karen L. Cote for Petitioner
Marcella S.
No appearance for Respondent.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
In separate petitions, petitioners Charlie S. (father) and Marcella S. (mother) (collectively, parents) challenge the juvenile court's decision to terminate reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] to consider terminating their parental rights to L. S. (the minor). Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it: 1) declined to return the minor to her, terminated reunification services and scheduled the section 366.26 hearing despite her participation in reunification services; and 2) found that reasonable services had been offered. Father's petition can be interpreted to argue that the juvenile court erred when it declined to return the minor to him, terminated reunification services and scheduled the section 366.26 hearing despite his participation in reunification services. As discussed below, we uphold the juvenile court findings because they are supported by substantial evidence.
Statement of Facts
The minor--three months old at the time--was removed from mother on April 25, 2005, when a social worker discovered that father had moved back into the home in violation of a restraining order. Three of mother's other children[2] (the minor's half-siblings) had been returned to the home on family maintenance just five days earlier, after mother had participated in her case plan,[3] tested clean for drugs, and obtained a restraining order against father because of a domestic violence incident in March 2005.
A social worker visited the home on April 21, 2005. Mother stated that father lived in Oregon but that they still wanted to work on their marriage. Mother declined to undergo a drug test that day, claiming she was busy preparing for a celebration to welcome the minor's three half-siblings home. On April 25, 2005, the social worker called mother's home to find out why she had missed the drug test scheduled for April 22, 2005. Father answered the phone and stated he had been at the home for a couple of days. Social workers and police went to the home that day to remove the minor and her half-siblings because of father's presence in the home in violation of the restraining order. Police found a glass methamphetamine pipe in a backyard shed and a pair of numchucks in the bedroom.
At the April 28, 2005, detention hearing, the juvenile court detained the minor and informed the parents that family reunification services would not exceed the statutory time line of six months.[4] The trial court ordered liberal, supervised visitation for both parents upon proof of a clean drug test and either an assessment for an â€
