In re Pedro D
Filed 3/20/06 In re Pedro D. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| In re PEDRO D., a Minor. DAISY G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B188143 (Super. Ct. No. CK58948)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Marilyn K. Martinez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Linda Peck for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Jerry M. Custis, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
_______________________
Petitioner Daisy G. seeks extraordinary writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l);[1] Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1) from the juvenile court's order, made at the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider selection and implementation of a permanent plan for her one-year-old son Pedro D. Daisy G. contends (1) she was denied reasonable reunification services, and (2) services should have been extended beyond the six-month period. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2005 Daisy G. gave birth to Pedro in a motel, and when she and Pedro were taken to a hospital they both tested positive for cocaine. A petition promptly filed by the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) seeking to declare Pedro a dependent child of the juvenile court (§ 300) alleged Daisy G. had a three-year history of illicit drug use, was a current abuser of cocaine rendering her incapable of providing proper care for Pedro, and had used illicit drugs during her pregnancy with Pedro. Pedro was detained and placed in foster care, and the court authorized monitored visits with him by Daisy G.
A report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing submitted by the Department May 25, 2005 indicated Daisy G. had a 2004 conviction for possession or purchase of cocaine base for sale, a 1999 conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol causing bodily injury, and had been arrested several other times on drug charges. Daisy G. had told the social worker she had used cocaine at least twice a week since 2001, but had reduced her use during her pregnancy with Pedro. Since Pedro's detention on April 29 Daisy G. visited him just once. The Department's social worker had given Daisy G. referrals for parenting, drug counseling and individual counseling programs, and Daisy G. had enrolled in a substance abuse program, a parenting program, and Narcotics Anonymous classes. On May 6 Daisy G. had tested positive for drug use including cocaine.
On May 27, 2005 the court sustained the Department's petition, ordered the Department to provide family reunification services, and ordered Daisy G. to attend a drug rehabilitation program with random testing approved by the Department and a parent education program, to participate in individual counseling, and to verify that she had a stable and sober lifestyle. The matter was continued to November 18, 2005 for the six-month review hearing.
The Department's report for the six-month review hearing stated that the social worker had given Daisy G. referrals for her court ordered programs in May, August and November. Daisy G. had enrolled in a Department-approved drug treatment program in May, but had submitted positive tests for cocaine on August 3, November 1, and November 9, and had missed five other tests.[2] Daisy G. had dropped out of the approved drug program in August and enrolled in a program (My Father's House International Inc.) which was not approved by the Department. My Father's House disregarded the social worker's repeated attempts to obtain information about its programs, did not respond to telephone calls seeking progress reports, and rebuffed the social worker's attempts to talk with the facility's program director and to inspect the facility. My Father's House had submitted a report showing a negative drug test for Daisy G. on November 2, just one day after she had tested positive at the testing facility approved by the Department. The Department further reported Daisy G. had failed to appear for many of her scheduled weekly visits with Pedro, had visited him just five times during the previous six months despite the social worker's efforts to facilitate the visits, and as a result of Daisy G.'s failure to visit or otherwise comply with her case plan Pedro had been moved to a prospective adoptive home in October. Daisy G. had also failed to appear for appointments with the social worker in June and July, she moved and refused to give the social worker her new home address, and as a result during the months of August and September the social worker was unable to locate Daisy G. and follow up with her compliance with court orders. The Department recommended the court terminate reunification services for Daisy G., citing her minimal compliance with her case plan, her positive drug tests, and her sporadic visitation with Pedro.
On November 18, 2005 the six-month hearing was continued to December 14 for a contest. In a supplemental report prepared for the contested hearing, the Department stated Daisy G. was a â€
