legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Craig R. v. Sup. Ct.

Craig R. v. Sup. Ct.
07:06:2006

Craig R. v. Sup. Ct.





Filed 7/3/06 Craig R. v. Sup. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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











CRAIG R.,


Petitioner,


v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF


RIVERSIDE COUNTY,


Respondent;


RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,


Real Party in Interest.



E040222


(Super.Ct.No. RIJ108772)


OPINION



ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Becky Dugan, Judge. Petition denied.


David Goldstein for Petitioner.


No appearance by Respondent.


Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.


Petitioner Craig R. (father) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a), regarding his daughter, Victoria (the child). Father contends that the juvenile court should have ordered the child to be returned to his custody at the 18-month review hearing and that the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to provide him with reasonable reunification services during the last six months of his reunification period. In the alternative, father argues that the court abused its discretion in failing to extend his services beyond the 18-month limit. We deny father's writ petition.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


On October 12, 2004, DPSS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] petition on behalf of the child. The child was five years old at the time. The petition alleged that the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). Specifically, the petition alleged that there was a substantial risk that the child would suffer serious physical harm, because father abused alcohol. His alcohol problem limited his ability to provide the child with adequate care, and it created a dangerous and detrimental home environment. Furthermore, father had an extensive criminal history. The child's mother, who is not a party to this writ, was not a member of the child's household. Her whereabouts were unknown.


Detention Report


The social worker filed a detention report stating that, on more than one occasion, father showed up at school to pick up the child with the smell of alcohol on his breath. It was also reported that, on one occasion, father was found at home drunk after he failed to pick up the child at school. On August 16, 2004, when the social worker went to father's home, she could smell alcohol on his breath. The home was disorganized and dirty. Father was difficult to understand because his speech was unorganized and his sentences were incomplete. He denied that he had been drinking and denied ever having a problem with alcohol. Father was tested and his blood alcohol level was .097.


An anonymous source reported that, on numerous occasions, he found father at home drunk and passed out. Furthermore, this person had to pick up the child from school several times because father had been drinking.


The social worker interviewed the child, who reported that father drank beer and often fell asleep. Father took a lot of naps--sometimes three per day. The child was often left alone to watch television. When asked what she did for food, the child stated that she sometimes just ate crackers because she did not know what else to do. She also said that she slept in a bed with father, but denied any sexual misconduct.


The social worker spoke with the child's daycare provider, who stated that she was concerned for the child's safety because father often showed up with alcohol on his breath. Furthermore, he would drop off the child in her pajamas without a change of clothes. Father once failed to pick up the child, so the daycare provider went to father's house and found him asleep. On one occasion, the child acted in a bizarre manner after being dropped off. She started banging her head on the headboard, and then ran into the closet. The child would not disclose what was wrong.


The detention hearing was held on October 13, 2004. The court detained the child in foster care.


Jurisdiction/Disposition Report and Hearing


The social worker prepared a jurisdiction/disposition report in which she stated that father still denied having a problem with alcohol. Nonetheless, he was willing to undergo treatment in order to regain custody of the child. The social worker further stated that several individuals reported that father drove with his daughter while intoxicated. The social worker attached a case plan to the report. Father's case plan required him to complete a parenting education program, an inpatient substance abuse program, and a 12-Step program. He was also required to submit to random substance abuse testing.


At a contested jurisdiction hearing on December 13, 2004, the court found that the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) and found true those allegations. The court ordered reunification services to be provided for father.


Six-Month Status Review


The social worker prepared a report for the six-month hearing. In the report, she stated that father began a substance abuse treatment program, but his progress was halted when he moved to the desert area. He then enrolled in another treatment program and began taking some steps toward treating his problem. However, his participation was unsatisfactory, and he was close to being discharged due to several unexcused absences. The social worker recommended six more months of services, which the court granted at a hearing on June 7, 2005.


Twelve-Month Status Review


The social worker filed a 12-month review report recommending that reunification services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. Father had been participating in an outpatient program for over seven months but admitted that he was still drinking. He was terminated from his program.


The social worker reported that she met with one of father's grown children, who was very concerned about father's ability to raise the child. He said that father had been through numerous substance abuse programs and always returned to drinking. The son recalled that when he was a teenager, he watched father drink himself to sleep and also get in trouble with the authorities over his continual drinking. Father's son further stated that father could get abusive when drunk. He was afraid for the child. Similarly, father's grown daughter expressed her concern for the child in a letter to the social worker stating that she did not want the child to be raised by father because her years spent with father were â€





Description A decision regarding termination of reunification services and termination of parental rights.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale