Roxanne G. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 8/3/06 Roxanne G. v. Sup. Ct. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petitions for extraordinary writ. Marilyn K. Martinez, Judge Pro Tem. Writ denied.

Linda Peck for Roxanne G.

Office of the County Counsel, Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

No appearance for Respondent.

Roxanne G. (mother), mother of Jasmine M. and Jocelyn M., petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38, et seq. She seeks review of an order setting a permanent plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.^[1] Mother complains that the juvenile court erred in concluding there was no substantial probability she and the children would reunite within an additional six-month period of reunification. We deny the petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jasmine, then 5, and Jocelyn, then 3, were detained from mother on October 14, 2003.^[2] The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral reporting that the maternal uncle who lived with them was striking the children, tripping them and verbally abusing them. When the family was interviewed by a social worker outside the presence of the maternal uncle, mother and the maternal grandmother confirmed the abuse to the children and also stated the maternal uncle was violent toward them. The women had not reported the maternal uncle to the police or sought a restraining order because they were afraid of his temper or had failed to follow through. Because mother was failing to protect the children, DCFS eventually removed them from her care. The detention was approved, and a section 300 petition was filed alleging mother harmed and failed to protect the children. An amended petition added allegations that the endangerment and failure to protect related not only to violence by the maternal uncle, but also to violence perpetrated by the children's father over the years.

At a November 14, 2003 pretrial resolution conference, mother agreed to maintain a home away from the maternal uncle and to participate in family maintenance, including domestic violence counseling, and the children were returned to her custody. The section 300 petition was sustained as to the failure to protect allegations. Mother initially appeared to embrace the idea that she was responsible for protecting her children from violence, and the children were reportedly doing quite well in her care. However, in December of 2004, DCFS reported that mother had moved from the safe residence she had established, was not responding to the social worker's efforts to contact her, and was not taking the children to counseling sessions that had been ordered for them. In fact, by February 2005, mother was living with a friend rather than maintaining her own home, was not participating in court-ordered counseling, and insisted her children were not required to go to counseling.

When DCFS determined mother also had a new boyfriend, and that both he and mother appeared to be physically abusing the girls, DCFS redetained the children. It filed a subsequent petition alleging mother had not only resumed exposing the children to violence from others, but was abusing them herself. DCFS reported that Jocelyn had bruises to her face and body, and had stated that mother's boyfriend once struck her so hard she â€