In re Ariel W.
Filed 4/4/07 In re Ariel W. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ARIEL W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JENNIFER S., Defendant and Appellant. | D049744 (Super. Ct. No. NJ013293) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael Imhoff, Referee. Affirmed.
Jennifer S. appeals an order of the juvenile court made at a six-month review hearing involving her dependent daughter Ariel W. Jennifer contends the court abused its discretion by denying her request for increased visitation with Ariel. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
In June 2006, eight-month-old Ariel became a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code[2]section 300, subdivision (a) and was removed from Jennifer's custody based on findings Jennifer and Michael W., Ariel's father,[3]engaged in domestic violence in Ariel's presence. The court ordered Jennifer to participate in reunification services, including the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) program.
The family came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) when Ariel was born with a positive toxicology for marijuana. Jennifer admitted using drugs during her pregnancy. Michael had a history of mental illness and substance abuse. Jennifer had a criminal history, including several counts of battery. She abused alcohol and was homeless. Agency filed the petition on behalf of Ariel when Jennifer, who was intoxicated, physically attacked Michael while he was holding Ariel in a front-facing backpack, causing Michael to fall to the ground with Ariel.
Ariel was initially placed in foster care and Jennifer was having supervised visits. During two visits, Jennifer appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. She was arrested twice for drunk and disorderly conduct. In July 2006, Jennifer was a passenger in a car involved in an accident because the driver was drunk. Jennifer sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital where tests showed her blood alcohol level was .302.
Agency recommended Ariel be placed with paternal relatives, who were willing to transport her from Long Beach to San Diego for visits with Jennifer. The paternal relatives were supportive of Jennifer's efforts to reunify with Ariel. However, if reunification efforts failed, they were willing to adopt Ariel.
Jennifer had recently enrolled in a residential alcohol treatment program. She was on step one of the 12-step program and did not yet have a sponsor. Jennifer was having weekly visits with Ariel, and the paternal relatives were willing to bring Ariel to visits as frequently as the court ordered. The 100-mile drive took two hours each way. Following a contested hearing, the court placed Ariel with the paternal relatives and ordered visits to occur weekly.
According to a six-month review report, Jennifer relapsed into alcohol use after being in treatment for a month, and was sent to a 10-day detoxification program. She completed parenting classes but did not complete her anger management program, begin therapy or complete a psychological evaluation, and she was in poor compliance with SARMS. Although Jennifer wanted unsupervised visits with Ariel, the social worker believed Jennifer needed to show a substantial period of sobriety before visits could safely be expanded. The social worker recommended six more months of services.
At a six-month review hearing, the court found returning Ariel to Jennifer's custody would be detrimental to Ariel, continued Ariel placed with the paternal relatives and ordered six more months of reunification services. The court denied Jennifer's request for more frequent visits.
DISCUSSION
A
Standard of Review
The juvenile court defines a parent's visitation rights by balancing the parent's interests in visitation with the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) The court may impose restrictions on parental visitation, consistent with the child's best interests under the particular circumstances of the case. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; In re Clara B. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 988, 999.) The state's interest in providing for the best interests of the child justifies any limited intrusion on a parent's right to visitation. (In re Melissa H. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 173, 175.) The court has broad discretion in making visitation orders, which we review for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351-1352.)
B
The Court Properly Denied Jennifer's Request for Increased Visits
Here, the evidence showed Jennifer had not addressed her serious problem with alcohol abuse after Ariel was removed from her custody. Jennifer was under the influence of alcohol during several visits with Ariel, she was arrested twice for drunk and disorderly conduct, and she was extremely intoxicated at the time of a car accident in which she was injured. Although Jennifer began a residential treatment program, she relapsed within a month. She had not been complying with other aspects of her reunification plan. Further, Ariel was placed with paternal relatives who lived 100 miles away, requiring two-hour drives each way for visits. Although the relatives were willing to accommodate increased visits if necessary, any increased travel time for such a young child was a factor the court was entitled to consider in fashioning its visitation order. Limiting visits to once a week was consistent with Ariel's best interests, and does not, as Jennifer claims, suggest the order was punitive.
Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find Jennifer's visits should not be increased from once a week until Jennifer was able to benefit from the services offered to her, including showing a substantial period of sobriety. The court acted well within its discretion by ordering visitation consistent with Ariel's best interests.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] A more detailed version of the facts is found in our unpublished opinion in which we affirmed the court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to Ariel. (In re Ariel W. (Feb. 27, 2007, D048959), [nonpub. opn.].)
[2] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[3] Michael is now deceased.
