In re Ryan
Filed 3/10/06 In re Ryan O. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| In re RYAN O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NANCY M., Objector and Appellant. | A111135 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 190561-01) |
Appellant Nancy M. (Mother) is the mother of 10-year-old Ryan O., a dependent child of the juvenile court. Mother purports to appeal from a finding of the juvenile court after a six-month review hearing that reasonable services had been provided. Because this finding is unappealable, we dismiss the appeal under the rationale of Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147 (Melinda K.).
I. FACTS
Respondent Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) filed a dependency petition on September 1, 2004, alleging that Mother was not providing for Ryan's support (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (g)) because she had been arrested and incarcerated for suspicion of committing murder. Mother told police she killed a male acquaintance, Joey M., in retaliation for his molesting Ryan. She was incarcerated at the Santa Rita Jail. Ryan's father was also incarcerated. Ryan was placed in a foster home.
On September 28, 2004, the juvenile court sustained the petition, adjudged Ryan a dependent child of the juvenile court, and ordered reunification services for Mother. Her reunification case plan included counseling, substance abuse testing and counseling, and a parenting education program.
In its report prepared for a March 8, 2005 status review hearing, the Agency recommended that Ryan remain in out-of-home placement and that the court order six more months of reunification services.[1][1] The Agency noted that Ryan was regularly visiting and writing Mother in jail, and that the Agency had mailed Mother writing paper, stamped envelopes, and a packet of parenting information.
The March 8 hearing was continued to April 5, when Mother requested a contested hearing on the reasonableness of the reunification services provided in the six months between September 2004 and March 2005. Apparently, there were difficulties with providing Mother reunification services in jail, and some of the parenting information involved infants.
The juvenile court continued the matter to April 19 for an update on the availability of services in the jail. The Agency prepared an addendum report noting that Mother's eligibility for jail programs was sharply curtailed by her maximum security housing status.
The matter came on for a contested hearing on June 16. Mother's social worker testified that Mother was not eligible to participate in the two parenting programs at the jail. Between September 2004 and March 2005, no one from the Agency had gone to the jail to talk to Mother about parenting. The social worker may have sent parenting materials regarding infants to Mother, but also sent Mother parenting materials appropriate for Ryan. Ryan had been regularly visiting Mother in the jail.
The juvenile court found that the Agency had provided reasonable services, especially in light of the constraints on program eligibility caused by Mother's housing status. The court also found that Mother â€
