Ebony L. v. Superior Court

Filed 9/1/06 Ebony L. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THE COURT^*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.

Ebony L., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing^[1] as to her daughter S. We will grant the petition.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Petitioner is a 17-year-old mother with a history of uncontrolled anger. At the age of nine, she was arrested for three counts of threatening, three counts of brandishing a knife, and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon. In May 2004, petitioner gave birth to S. On July 10, 2004, the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) removed S. from petitioner's custody after receiving a referral that petitioner slapped the baby and choked her. Petitioner was placed in juvenile hall and S. was released to the custody of her father Francisco,^[2] also a minor, under a plan of voluntary family maintenance. In August, Francisco returned S. to petitioner's care after she was released from juvenile hall and charges were dropped. Francisco declined further services and the case was closed.

The instant dependency proceedings were initiated in October 2004 after petitioner shoved then four-month-old S. in the stomach and engaged in a tugging match for her with a relative. The department took S. into protective custody and filed a dependency petition on her behalf, alleging petitioner physically abused and failed to protect her. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b).) The court ordered S. detained and the parents be provided with two supervised visits per week. The court subsequently found the allegations true. S. was placed in a foster home.

In assessing petitioner and Francisco for services, the department discovered that petitioner and Francisco smoked marijuana regularly, Francisco also used methamphetamine and there had been two reports of domestic violence between petitioner and Francisco in June and August 2004. In light of their histories, the department recommended the court order both parents to complete a parenting course as well as anger management, substance abuse and mental health assessments, participate in domestic violence counseling and submit to random drug testing. The department further recommended a mental health assessment for S.

In January 2005, the court ordered the services the department recommended. The court also ordered psychological evaluations and supervised twice weekly visitation of one hour per visit for both parents, and set the six-month review hearing for June 2005.

Over the next several months, petitioner made little progress in initiating her services plan requirements, partly because she was living with and caring for her mother. She missed several appointments for a mental health assessment after which she was placed on a walk-in status. In addition, she was refused enrollment in the anger management program after she verbally abused and threatened the staff with physical violence. The department suspended petitioner's visitation in March 2005 when petitioner failed to participate in random drug tests.

In May 2005, petitioner completed a psychological evaluation. The psychologist concluded preliminary evaluation results based on â€