D.M.F. v. Superior Court

Filed 3/27/06 D.M.F. v. Superior Court CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

Since 1986, D.M.F. (petitioner) has had seven children, all of whom were either removed from her custody or informally placed with relatives. Two days after her eighth child, J.F. was born, real party in interest San Francisco Human Services Agency asked to have the newborn detained. It also filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] seeking to have J.F. declared a dependent child because there was a substantial risk he would suffer serious harm as a result of his mother's mental illness, which made her unable to protect him and provide regular care. The juvenile court ordered J.F. detained. It then conducted a lengthy jurisdictional hearing and sustained the petition. At the dispositional hearing the court made a finding that petitioner would not be offered any reunification services because she had failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify with one of J.F.'s siblings and had made no reasonable efforts to correct the problems that led to the removal of the sibling (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)), and it scheduled a hearing to terminate her parental rights pursuant to section 366.26.

As authorized by rule 38.1 of the California Rules of Court, mother petitions for an extraordinary writ to set aside the order scheduling the termination hearing. The sole basis for the petition is mother's claim that the jurisdictional findings lack the support of substantial evidence. On this proceeding, she does not challenge the decision to deny reunification services. We conclude this claim is without merit, and therefore deny the petition on the merits.

THE EVIDENCE

While petitioner was pregnant with J.F., her physician asked social worker, Luz Villa in May of 2005 to see her because the physician was concerned that petitioner was having delusions. Ms. Villa spoke with petitioner, who told her that her other children had been kidnapped, her telephone was tapped, she had been assaulted by police (who were conspiring against her), a former case manager had attempted to kill her, and she was a â€