Griselda M. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 5/24/06  Griselda M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  William A. Anderson, Jr., Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)  Petition denied.

            Phillip Malisos for Petitioner.

            No appearance by Respondent.

            Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

            Petitioner Griselda M. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's decision to deny reunification services to her as to her son, Michael (the minor).  In this petition, mother argues that the court erred when it failed to discuss the factors set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code, section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1),^[1] for determining whether granting reunification services to an incarcerated parent would be detrimental to the child.  As discussed below, we find the juvenile court correctly and adequately determined that reunification services would be detrimental to the minor, and so deny the petition.

Statement of Facts

            The minor was detained on the date of his birth, November 10, 2005, because mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of birth.  The section 300 petition also alleged mother had admitted to abusing controlled substances while pregnant with the minor, had tested positive for methamphetamines at three previous prenatal visits, was not taking her medications for bipolar disorder and had an extensive criminal history.  At the detention hearing on November 16, 2005, the trial court authorized the minor to be placed with mother in an in-patient drug treatment program.^[2]

            Mother continued to use drugs, admitting to the social worker on December 6, 2005, that a drug test would show positive for methamphetamine.  Mother eventually entered a residential drug treatment program sometime in December but left the program on or about January 2, 2006.  Mother failed to drug test as requested on January 12 and 24, 2006.  Mother was arrested and booked for possessing narcotics on February 20, 2006.  On February 28, she was sentenced to 365 days in jail.  A new section 300 petition was filed on March 13, 2006, to add the new facts concerning her latest incarceration.

            At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on March 16, 2006, the Department of Public Social Services (department) submitted on the social worker's reports.  Mother did not object to the reports and offered no affirmative evidence.  The juvenile court found true the allegations in the section 300 petition and denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).  This writ challenges the decision to deny reunification services.

Discussion

            Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services because, rather than individually considering on the record each of the factors set forth in section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), it merely stated, without explanation, that it found â€