Elissa R. v. Superior Court

Filed 5/22/06  Elissa R. v. Superior Court CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            Elissa R. (Mother) petitions for extraordinary relief under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, asking us to set aside the juvenile court's order setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26  hearing).[1]  She also asks us to order her children returned to her custody and to order family maintenance services.  We deny the petition on the merits.

I.  BACKGROUND

            Mother has two children, R.  W. and R.  P., who are the subjects of this dependency action.  The Alameda County Social Services Agency (the agency) filed a petition pursuant to section 300 on July 2, 2004, alleging there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious harm.  According to the petition, police had been called by neighbors who had seen then two-year-old R.  W. running down the street unattended on June 28, 2004.  On the same date, Mother was arrested on drug-related charges, as she was under the influence of methamphetamines and drug-related paraphernalia was found in her home.  R.  P. was one month old at the time.  The identity and whereabouts of the children's fathers were unknown.  The children were detained.  According to the detention report, the family had a prior history with the agency, including a neglect referral in which the reporting party stated that numerous people went in and out of Mother's home and smoked crystal methamphetamine there.

            The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition true and found the children were persons described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).  The children were placed in foster care.

            The report prepared for the January 2005 status review hearing discussed Mother's progress.  She was in compliance with several of the objectives of her case plan, including obeying all court orders; maintaining a relationship with her children by following her visitation plan; not breaking the law; monitoring her children's health, safety, and well being; and showing that she knew age-appropriate behavior for her children.  She was progressing on the requirement that she show her ability and willingness to have custody of her children:  She had shown a strong desire to regain custody, had enrolled in a drug treatment program, and had visited her children regularly.  Mother was in partial compliance with the requirement that she stay free of illegal drugs, show her ability to live free from drug dependency, and comply with all required drug tests.  The report noted that Mother had missed three drug tests from September to November, and that she had tested positive for cocaine in December 2004.  The juvenile court found Mother had made partial progress toward alleviating the causes requiring R.  W.'s placement and no progress as to the causes of R.  P.'s placement, and continued the dependency.

            A June 2005 status review report recommended that the children remain in their current placements, that reunification services be terminated, and that a .26  hearing be scheduled with the permanent plan of adoption.  The report noted that Mother wanted the children returned to her care.[2]  According to the report, Mother had moved into a two-bedroom apartment, which was neat, clean, and adequately furnished.  Mother was not in compliance with her case plan's requirement that she not break the law, because she had driven with a suspended license for most of the reporting period.  The suspended license was due in part to an outstanding warrant arising from a traffic violation in Reno; Mother told the agency she was going to Reno in May to resolve the traffic violation.  Mother was in partial compliance with the requirement that she pay attention to and monitor her children's health, safety, and well-being, and had completed a parenting course with Highland Hospital (Highland).  Her ability to monitor and supervise her children had improved.

            The juvenile court continued R.  W. and R.  P. as dependent children, and granted de facto parent status to their foster parents.[3]

            A contested 12-month review hearing took place on August 11, 2005, and September 16, 2005.  The children's social worker reported that Mother had unsupervised visits with the children every other week.  At the social worker's request, the Oakland Police Department had conducted a health and safety check on Mother's home on August  8, 2005.  The officer who made the check told the social worker that she had seen four people at the home, and that one of them had a prior conviction for manslaughter.[4]  The worker expressed concern about Mother's ability to maintain her long-term sobriety, in light of her associations, the poor judgments she had made, and lack of a solid support structure in Mother's life.  She was also concerned that Mother had been involved in abusive relationships, but had not enrolled in classes related to domestic violence; that Mother had not participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA) groups;[5] that Mother's attendance at her groups at Highland had been â€