Filed 2/16/21 N.H. v. Superior Court CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

Petitioner N.H. (Father) seeks extraordinary writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile court’s orders terminating his reunification services at the six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))[1] on December 7, 2020 and setting a section 366.26 hearing regarding his son H.H. Father contends that the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic justified extending his reunification services beyond the six-month review. We deny the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 11, 2020, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), with respect to H.H., born in February 2020. The petition alleged that both parents were regular users of heroin and methamphetamine, that both H.H. and his mother had tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and opiates, and that H.H. was at substantial risk of serious physical harm and/or illness because of his parents’ substance abuse.

A jurisdictional hearing was held on March 16, in advance of which the Department submitted a report indicating that social workers were making efforts to get both parents into inpatient treatment for substance abuse. The juvenile court sustained the petition and set a disposition hearing for April 21.

In advance of that hearing, which took place on April 30, the Department submitted a disposition report, which stated that “[t]he mother and father have not fully acknowledged they need to go to an inpatient substance abuse program. They have attempted the beginnings of detox programs but are not following through.” It further stated that “[d]espite the Covid 19 pandemic and shelter in place, there are still resources and services the parents could participate in to address their substance use.” The report recommended that reunification services be offered to both parents, and attached a case plan requiring Father to complete an assessment at one of several listed substance abuse treatment programs and follow all treatment recommendations. At the hearing, the juvenile court declared H.H. a dependent of the court, continued the detention of H.H. from his parents, and ordered family reunification services for both parents. The juvenile court set a six-month review hearing for October 29.

In advance of the six-month review, the Department submitted a status review report. The report stated that “[d]uring this reporting period, the parents did not maintain consistent contact with the Department or consistently engage in their court-ordered services. The Department was unable to maintain regular contact with the parents between the months of April, May, June, July, and August due to the parents unwillingness to make themselves available.” With respect to Father’s substance abuse treatment, the report stated that the parents had texted the social worker on August 19 and 20 that they had found a program they could both attend, but when the social worker attempted to follow up, she received no response. The report stated that “[t]o date [October 29], the father has not engaged in services.” The report concluded that the parents had not taken any steps to address their substance use and recommended that the juvenile court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

The six-month review hearing took place on December 7 and 10. Father testified that he was “actively” in a methadone clinic for the past week and had a substance abuse counselor. With respect to inpatient treatment for substance abuse, Father testified that “I just don’t feel that I need it.” When asked the last time he used heroin, he answered, “[e]arlier today. This morning.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services to both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing for April 7, 2021. Before doing so, the juvenile court noted that “the pandemic would not have prevented . . . inpatient treatment.”

On January 8, 2021, Father filed a petition for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) of the juvenile court’s orders terminating his reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26.

DISCUSSION

Father’s appointed counsel filed a brief indicating that she found no cognizable issues on appeal. However, her brief also indicated that Father had asked us to review “whether the COVID-19 Pandemic presented a unique set of circumstances that justify an extension of reunification services beyond the 6 month date.” The Department filed a response arguing that the petition should be denied.

We review the juvenile court’s finding that Father failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in his case plan for substantial evidence. (See § 366.21, subd. (e); In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401.)

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s orders, even given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. H.H. was removed from Father’s custody because of Father’s substance abuse, and the case plan called for Father to complete an assessment at one of several substance abuse treatment programs, with the disposition report expressly concluding that “[d]espite the Covid 19 pandemic and shelter in place, there are still resources and services the parents could participate in to address their substance use.” Father never completed such an assessment, testifying “I just don’t feel that I need it.” In addition, he continued to use heroin, up to and including on the morning of the six-month review hearing. Father has not identified any way in which the pandemic or shelter-in-place orders have interfered with his ability to seek substance abuse treatment as required by his case plan, and the juvenile court expressly concluded that “the pandemic would not have prevented . . . inpatient treatment.” Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

_________________________

Richman, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Stewart, J.

_________________________

Miller, J.

N.H. v. The Superior Court of Humboldt County (A161659)

[1] Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.