Filed 10/5/18 L.L. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gary L. Green, Commissioner.

L.L., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Following a contested dispositional hearing in June 2018, the juvenile court denied petitioner Liz L. (mother) reunification services as to her now eight-month-old daughter, N.L., and set a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26[1] hearing for October 10, 2018. Mother, in propria persona, filed a petition under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452,[2] requesting reunification services and placement. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Dependency proceedings were initiated in December 2017 when newborn N.L. was born drug-exposed. Mother admitted using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy with her. Mother also used methamphetamine during her pregnancies with N.L.’s sister, born in November 2004, and brother, born in August 2012. Neither child was in mother’s custody because she voluntarily placed them with relatives. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) placed N.L. in foster care.

The juvenile court ordered N.L. detained pursuant to a dependency petition and offered mother services, including drug treatment. The court also ordered paternity testing for N.L.’s alleged father Jorge, which established his biological paternity.

Mother entered the six-month residential drug treatment program at Fresno First in March 2018 and tested positive for methamphetamine during the admission process. She completed a mental health assessment and began weekly therapy. She also completed a domestic violence assessment and was referred for classes but did not enroll in them.

On March 27, 2018, representatives from the department met as a panel to decide whether to recommend reunification services for mother. The panel determined her “extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs” justified denying her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). Specifically, it considered the fact that she tested positive for methamphetamine at the births of her three children and continued to use the drug despite having successfully completed residential drug treatment in July 2013.

The juvenile court heard testimony from the social worker and mother at the contested dispositional hearing in June 2018. The social worker testified mother’s five-year-old son had been living with her at Fresno First since April 2018. Although she was aware mother was doing well in drug treatment, it did not change her recommendation to deny mother reunification services.

Mother asked the juvenile court to place N.L. with her at Fresno First. She believed she was benefitting from the classes and counseling offered there. She relapsed three years after the dependency case for her son was closed because she was resentful and angry and blaming other people. She claimed March 2, 2018, as her sobriety date. She visited N.L. once a week for two hours and believed they had developed a bond.

The juvenile court found N.L. could not safely remain in mother’s custody and ordered her removed from parental custody. The court also denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). In ruling, the court acknowledged mother and N.L. had a healthy and appropriate parent/child attachment and that mother sustained four months of sobriety. However, the court did not believe N.L.’s stability would be promoted by placing her with mother given the recentness of mother’s sobriety and her history of relapse. The court also considered mother’s substance abuse history significant because she completed multiple drug treatment programs but was unable to sustain sobriety and tested positive upon entry into her most recent program on March 1, 2018. The court also denied Jorge reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

DISCUSSION

Mother does not assert that the juvenile court’s orders denying her reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing are error. Instead, she contends that she did everything she needed to do to regain custody of her daughter and wants her daughter placed with her. She states that she remains in treatment at Fresno First. She appended two letters, dated May 22 and July 9, 2018, describing her attendance and participation in the program. The letter dated May 22 was attached to the department’s report dated June 22, 2018, and is part of the appellate record. The July 9 letter was not before the juvenile court when it made its ruling. Therefore, we cannot consider it. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)

As a general rule, when the juvenile court orders a child removed from parental custody, it must provide services designed to reunify the family. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) “The purpose of reunification efforts is to ‘eliminate the conditions leading to loss of custody and facilitate reunification of parent and child. This furthers the goal of preservation of family, whenever possible.’ [Citation.] However, it is also the ‘intent of the Legislature, especially with regard to young children, … that the dependency process proceed with deliberate speed and without undue delay.’ [Citation.] Thus, the statutory scheme recognizes that there are cases in which the delay attributable to the provision of reunification services would be more detrimental to the minor than discounting the competing goal of family preservation. [Citation.] Specifically, section 361.5, subdivision (b), exempts from reunification services ‘ “those parents who are unlikely to benefit” ’ [citation] from such services or for whom reunification efforts are likely to be ‘fruitless.’ ” (Jennifer S. v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1113, 1120.)

Here, the juvenile court denied mother reunification services, having found subdivision (b)(13) of section 361.5 applied. Subdivision (b)(13) applies as relevant here where the parent “has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court’s attention .…” If the juvenile court finds that subdivision (b)(13) applies, it “shall not” order reunification services unless it finds that reunification would serve the child’s best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).)

Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s application of subdivision (b)(13) to her circumstances or argue reunification would serve N.L.’s best interest. Consequently, she presents no claim of juvenile court error as required by rule 8.452 and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible errors (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), we dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for review.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.