J.N. v. Superior Court
Filed 4/28/06 J.N. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| J. N., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. |
F049721
(Super. Ct. No. JD104600-00)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
David G. Duket, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) from the juvenile court's order issued at the 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22)[1] reducing her visitation schedule with her daughter T. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a history of child welfare intervention dating back to 1999 resulting from her failure to adequately care for and protect her children. In October 2003, T.'s four older half-siblings were taken into protective custody by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) because petitioner jeopardized their safety by abusing drugs and allowing contact with their physically abusive father and petitioner's live-in boyfriend L.W., a registered sex offender.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and ordered no contact between the children and L.W. The court subsequently assumed dependency jurisdiction and ordered a plan of reunification for T.'s half-siblings.
Meanwhile, in August 2004, petitioner gave birth to L.W.'s daughter, T., who was taken into protective custody and adjudged a dependent of the court based on petitioner's failure to comply with the siblings' case plan and her continuing relationship with L.W. At the dispositional hearing in T.'s case, the juvenile court ordered petitioner to participate in substance abuse counseling, submit to random drug testing and obtain suitable housing for her family. The court denied L.W. reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) because he was convicted of a violent felony.
Petitioner received services in T.'s case over the ensuing 18 months and she made some progress.[2] She also visited regularly with T. under the supervision of the department and was reportedly loving and affectionate with her. However, petitioner was unable to establish adequate housing and she maintained a romantic relationship with L.W. who beat her up in December 2005 and was arrested for spousal abuse. In light of petitioner's minimal progress, the department recommended the court terminate reunification services and reduce visitation from weekly two-hour visits to a monthly one-hour visit.
On February 1, 2006, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested 18-month review hearing on the department's recommendations. Petitioner objected in general to the recommendation to terminate services and argued it would not be in T.'s best interest to curtail visitation. After further argument on the issue, the court terminated reunification services, modified the visitation order as recommended by the department and set the section 366.26 hearing for June 1, 2006.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in curtailing visitation without first finding that the existing visitation order was detrimental to T. In support of her argument, she cites section 366.22, subdivision (a), which governs the 18-month review proceedings and provides, â€
