Rosa T. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 5/25/06 Rosa T. v. Sup. Ct. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ROSA T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | E040104 (Super.Ct.Nos. J-206114, J-206115, J-206116 & J-206117) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Deborah A. Daniel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Monica Cazares for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis E. Wagner, Interim County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
1. Introduction
In this petition for extraordinary writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, Rosa T. (mother) challenges the juvenile court's order denying reunification and setting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] Mother claims the juvenile court erred in treating her three youngest children differently and denying services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). Because the record reveals substantial evidence to support the court's findings and order, we deny mother's petition.
2. Factual and Procedural History
By 1993, mother had given birth to four of her seven children. At that time, based on allegations of father's sexual abuse, Child Protective Services of Los Angeles removed mother's oldest daughter and her three siblings and provided reunification services for about two years. Mother failed to reunify with her oldest daughter, who is now an adult. The three siblings were returned to mother, but mother was ordered not to allow contact between father and the children. Mother failed to comply with these orders.
In January of 2006, father was arrested for molesting mother's second daughter, Jennifer (born 1992). The San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS) removed Jennifer, her twin brother Brian, her older brother Edwin (born 1989), and her three younger siblings. According to Jennifer, father had been molesting her for five to six years. She informed mother about the abuse, but mother failed to protect her. Both parents are currently incarcerated.
Mother admitted that her husband, who is the biological father of the five youngest children, molested his stepdaughter and his daughter Jennifer. Mother also stated that Brian had been molested by his paternal uncle, who is now serving time in prison.
On January 27, 2006, DCS filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j), for all six of mother's minor children. DCS included allegations of father's sexual abuse, mother's failure to protect, and mother's failure to reunify with the children's older sibling.
At the jurisdictional hearing on March 21, 2006, the court found the allegations true and declared the children to be dependents of the court. As recommended by the social worker, the court granted reunification services as to Brian and Edwin but denied services as to Jennifer and her three younger siblings. The court scheduled a hearing under section 366.26 for Jennifer and her younger siblings.
3. Denial of Reunification Services
Mother claims that the juvenile court erred in denying reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6).
Section 361.5, subdivision (b), lists the extraordinary circumstances that justify the denial of reunification services. (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 753.) One circumstance is where the child has been adjudicated a dependant on the ground that the child, sibling, or half-sibling has been the victim of severe physical or sexual abuse. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6).) Even where the child is not personally harmed, this exception is justified because the severe physical or sexual abuse of sibling or half-sibling places the child at risk of substantial harm. (See Deborah S. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 741, 751.)
In enacting section 361.5, the Legislature has recognized circumstances where reunification services would be useless because the risk of recidivism is high. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 478.) â€
