Pamela D. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 1/10/07 Pamela D. v. Sup. Ct. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
PAMELA D., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | A115821 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J06-00405) |
In October 2006,[1] the juvenile court denied reunification services for petitioner Pamela D. and set a February 22, 2007 date for a permanency planning hearing in a dependency matter involving minor F.D. (See Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] § 366.26.) Pamela petitions for review of these orders, asking us to issue a writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate the orders denying her reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing. She asks us to order the juvenile court to require that reunification services be provided to her and seeks a stay of the permanency planning hearing. She contends that the juvenile court erred when it found that statutory provisions barring the provision of reunification services applied. (See § 361.5, subd. (b)(10)-(11).) Real party in interest Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services opposes the petition. We deny the petition on the merits.
I. FACTS
F.D. was born in February to petitioner Pamela D. The mother tested positive for opiates at the time of the child's birth. By February 22, real party in interest Contra Costa County Department of Children and Family Services received word of a concern that Pamela could not adequately care for her child. Pamela had a history of mental illness.
A case worker interviewed Pamela on February 23. Pamela told her that the government was harassing her. Her speech was continuous and pressured as she moved from topic to topic. She admitted having had a nervous breakdown in 2000, although she had not seen a doctor for treatment for this condition. Pamela asserted that reports about her past were â€
