In re B.R.
Filed 6/20/13 In re B.R. CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
In re B.R.
et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
N.R. et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY,
Respondent;
CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU,
Real Party in Interest.
A138510
(Contra
Costa County
Super. Ct.
No. J11-01702 & J11-01703)
I.
Introduction
In this
children, B.R., born in 2008, and M.R., born in 2011, the superior court
reunification services and
to determine a permanent plan for the minors
(hereafter Father) have filed separate petitions for
extraordinary writ. They each argue that they substantially
complied with their reunification plans, and that the court erred in failing to
extend reunification services beyond
the 12-month review hearing so that they could successfully reunify with their
children. As substantial evidence
supports the juvenile court’s findings and orders, we deny the petitions.
II.
Facts
and Procedural History
This family has been involved with the
Family Services (the Bureau) since shortly after M.R.’s birth in November
2011. The family came to the Bureau’s
attention because of Mother’s chronic and serious alcohol dependence, multiple
domestic violence altercations, and Father’s inability to protect his children
when their mother was intoxicated.
Originally, the children were removed from Mother’s
custody alone, and the court sustained a petition declaring them dependent
children under section 300, subdivision (b), based on findings of drug abuse
and domestic violence. Father and
children moved in with the children’s paternal great-grandmother. However, in violation of a court order,
Father allowed Mother to care for M.R. while he went to work. Mother became intoxicated to the point of
needing emergency medical attention while two-month-old M.R. was in her
care. Mother’s blood-alcohol level
tested at .36 percent. By agreement, an
allegation was then sustained against Father based on failure to protect. The children were placed with paternal
relatives, where they have remained throughout these proceedings.
Reunification services were extended to both parents at
the 6-month review hearing despite very minimum progress on the referrals that
were offered to both parents since November 2011. Mother was referred to an inpatient substance
abuse treatment program. After initial
hesitation, Mother went to a program in February 2,
2012. She was discharged from the program because
she tested positive for alcohol after a weekend pass. Mother then lived with Father for
approximately six weeks before entering into another program. She completed the 90-day program and
requested a 30-day extension. On September
26, 2012,
she was discharged from the program because she tested positive for
alcohol. The next day, she was arrested
for stealing from Walmart. She went to
jail for 30 days. When she was released,
she went back to living with Father. She
admitted that she drank alcohol almost every day.
As for Father, after jurisdiction was taken, he was
referred to individual counseling, drug testing and parenting education by the
Bureau’s social worker. He started
counseling on August 21, 2012. However, he showed very little insight into
his role in the removal of his children, and little commitment to his case
plan. He also continued to provide
support to Mother even when she was abusing alcohol.
In the report prepared for the 12-month review hearing
the social worker recommended that reunification services be terminated, and that
a hearing be set to determine a permanent plan for the children. It was noted that both parents were attentive
and caring during their supervised visits with their children. However, neither parent had shown a
commitment to fulfilling the requirements of their case plans, nor had they
been able to address the issues that brought this family to the Bureau’s
attention. The social worker concluded
that it would be detrimental to send the children home to either one of their
parents when “the problem of substance abuse still exi[sts] with one parent and
[the] other parent continues to ignore the issue.†The report concludes with the following
assessment: “Considering the seriousness
of [Mother’s] alcohol abuse and [Father’s] inability to engage in services and
in making safe decisions around [Mother’s] drinking, the Bureau does not
believe it would be safe to return [the children] to [their parents’] care.â€
The
contested 12-month review hearing took place on six separate dates, beginning
on January 31, and concluding on April 15, 2013. Mother testified concerning her
and individual therapy, and her commitment to “live independently in a
healthful manner, substance free.†Mother also testified she had severed her
relationship with Father, which she described as being physically and
emotionally unhealthy for her. She was
living in a domestic violence shelter but was looking for a job and an
apartment where her children could reside with her in an environment free of
Father
testified that he had been living with his grandmother for the last four
months. He had seen an individual
therapist “[a]t least 15 times,†but he terminated the sessions because he
believed “that there [was] not much more to talk to him
about . . . .â€
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] He sporadically attended Al-Anon and
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Even
though Father was supposed to attend parenting classes, he “just didn’t look
for one.†Although he acknowledged there
was ongoing domestic violence in his relationship with Mother, he did not seek
help with domestic violence issues. He
testified that he recently made the determination that he was no longer going
to be in a relationship with Mother. His
“[m]ain priority is the kids.â€
The social
worker testified that the parents had failed to make any significant progress
on their reunification plans, and she could see no substantial probability the
children could be returned to either of them within the remaining few months of
the maximum 18-month reunification period.
social worker believed the parents remained in a relationship, continued to see
one another, and that Mother continued to abuse alcohol. The social worker testified that Father had
admitted to her he and Mother had recently gone to a local casino together, and
Mother had recently posted photos on Facebook of them together. Also, the social worker was “certain†that
she smelled alcohol on Mother’s breath after a court proceeding on
March 21. The social worker
expressed concern about the parents’ continuing association because of ongoing
problems with domestic violence and Father’s pattern of being unable to set
boundaries with Mother while facilitating her alcohol abuse.
At the conclusion of the
hearing, the court indicated that it did not find Mother and Father to be
credible witnesses. The court also noted
that they had demonstrated no insight into their deficiencies as parents. As for Mother, the court characterized her as
“a mean drunk†and found she is “just totally dishonest about her [substance
abuse] problem. She’s tried many times,
been kicked out of programs, has not been honest with the
court . . . .†As
for Father, the court indicated “he does care about his children, but I think
he cannot protect them.†Addressing the
parents, the court emphasized, “[y]ou don’t know how to stay away from each other.â€
The
juvenile court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Bureau,
concluding there was not a substantial probability that the children could be
returned to either parent’s custody within the remaining
month and a half, even if the court extended reunification services to the
18-month statutory maximum. The court
also found that returning the children to either of their parent
was scheduled for July 9, 2013, pursuant to section 366.26.
III.
Discussion
In her
petition, Mother contends there was no factual basis to support the court’s
finding that return of the children to her would be detrimental to their
well-being. She indicates that “within
the last six-month reporting period†she had “successfully completed a
residential substance abuse program, as well as subsequently enrolling and
participating in an outpatient substance abuse
program . . . .†She argues that while she may not be an
ideal parent, she gets “passing grades,†which she believes is enough to
support return of her children. She also
claims there is a substantial probability the children could be returned to her
custody if she were given more time to reunify.
In the same
vein, in Father’s petition he argues that he “did so much work towards
reunification and made substantial progress and all that progress could not be
set aside simply because Father did not meet the perfection the Court was
looking for.†Father argues further that
he “is satisfactorily progressing with his case plan, he has a [
provide his children a stable home.â€
Consequently, he questions the evidentiary support for the juvenile
court’s finding that there is not a substantial probability the children could
be returned and safely maintained in his custody.
“In
juvenile cases, as in other areas of the law, the power of an appellate court
asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence begins and ends with a
determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether
or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of
fact. . . . Where there
is more than one inference which can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
appellate court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the
trier of fact. [Citation.]†(In re Katrina C. (1988) 201
Cal.App.3d 540, 547; accord, In re David
H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1633.)
By the time
of the 12-month hearing, Mother had participated in three substance abuse
programs in the last two years. She was
discharged from two of them for relapsing and drinking again. She left one of the programs just a few days
before graduating, then got arrested, and spent time in jail. Despite Father’s participation in individual
counseling, he continued to exercise poor judgment by allowing Mother to live
with him after she was discharged from the treatment program, and again after
she was released from jail, while she continued to abuse alcohol.
In an
addendum to the report prepared for the 12-month review hearing the social
worker wrote: “It is clear that both parents fail to see the impact of
substance abuse on the lives of their children.
They appear not [to] have insight into [Father’s] codependency and how
it has been negatively impacting [Mother’s] dependence on substance abuse. [Father] has shown time and time again his
poor coping behaviors by wanting to rescue and support [Mother] even after her
unsuccessful treatment program outcomes and several relapses.â€
Based on
all this evidence, the juvenile court could properly determine that neither
parent had made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the
children’s removal from their care; and therefore, the children could not
safely be returned to either parent’s custody.
finding that neither parent had demonstrated the capacity and ability to
complete the objectives of their case plans within the remaining month and a
half left before the maximum reunification period expired. Therefore, the court could reasonably
conclude there was no substantial probability that either parent could safely
reunify with the children if additional services were ordered. In short, the court’s findings, which are
challenged in these writ petitions, were fully supported by the evidence.
IV.
Disposition
The
petitions are denied on their merits.
(§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(A).)
Our decision is immediately final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452(i),
8.490(b)(3).)
_________________________
RUVOLO,
P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
RIVERA, J.
_________________________
HUMES, J.
Welfare and Institutions Code.
attended eight individual therapy sessions.
