S.W. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 3/22/07 S.W. v. Sup. Ct. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Robert G. Fowler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Petition denied.

David M. Levy for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent.

Ruth E. Stringer, Acting County Counsel, and Dawn M. Messer, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

In this petition for writ relief, S.W. (mother) asks us to vacate the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1]for her daughter, B.R. She asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of substantial detriment if B.R. were returned to her custody. We disagree and, accordingly, we deny the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2005, mother was hospitalized pursuant to section 5150^[2]due to threats of suicide and violence to others. Mother, who was 16 years old and a dependent child herself, had been living in a group home with her two-month-old daughter, B.R., at the time. Police were called when mother began throwing items, challenging staff members, challenging other clients, and threatening to injure herself.

As a result, a dependency petition was filed with respect to B.R., who was detained and placed in foster care. A representative from the group home requested that mother not be returned there because it was believed her presence would be detrimental to the other residents. Consequently, she was placed in a different group home after her release from the hospital.

The juvenile court made the requisite jurisdictional findings following mothers admission that she suffers from an anger problem, which interferes with her ability to parent.

Mother gave birth to a second child on March 8, 2006. She was described as more moody and demanding than ever during the last month of her pregnancy. She also indicated her intent to move out of the group home when she turned 18 years old and B.R. was returned to her.

In the six-month status review report, the Department of Childrens Services (department) noted that mother had completed parenting and anger management classes, and had continued to participate in individual and group therapy. She had had two weekend visits with B.R. that went well. While mother had made strong progress, the social worker still had concerns because mother had never lived on her own and would have increased difficulty parenting two small children.

The court continued reunification services for another six months as recommended by the department.

During the next review period, it was reported that mother had sneaked an adult male through the window into her room at the group home during the night. The social worker opined that this incident showed mothers immaturity and lack of good judgment necessary to be a responsible parent.

It was also reported during this time that B.R. showed signs of stress and appeared unhappy when mother visited. The social worker believed that mother needed support in parenting.

At the 12-month review hearing on July 25, 2006, the court ordered that reunification services be continued and set the 18-month review hearing for November 27, 2006.

During the following review period, mother was enrolled in summer school and was transported to school each day. However, she was dropped from school due to nonattendance. Members of the staff learned that mother was spending the day at a restaurant and was involved with the adult male owner. Mother hid from them when they confronted her at the restaurant.

Following mothers complaints about the staff and other residents at her group home, she and her infant son were placed in another group home. This move was made because of mothers poor reputation with the staff and an attempt to give her a clean slate to improve her behavior. Her rebellious behavior continued. The director at the new group home indicated that mother was uncooperative and was not working on her case plan.

In August 2006, mother and her son were again moved to a different group home, due to mothers behavioral problems. Although mother was directed to place her son in a crib rather than a bouncer at night, she refused, saying he would not sleep in the crib and she did not want him to cry all night. Each time a staff member attempted to put the child in his crib, mother became loud and disrespectful, and would return him to the bouncer. Once mother gave contradictory explanations for a cut on her sons cheek when she returned from a weekend pass. Her passes were eventually taken away when she continued to return late. In September 2006, her infant son was removed from her care due to her inadequate parenting.

B.R.s visits with mother were reduced when the foster parents reported that the child became increasingly oppositional to visits, crying, kicking, and screaming upon arriving at the group home.

A clinical therapist at the group home wrote a 90-day assessment for the period September 28 through November 20, 2006, concluding that mother had made progress and that she should have custody of her children, since the agency provides [for] 24 hour supervision and observation of interactions between mother and child. This writer and the staff feel that she has the ability to care for her child adequately under supervision, in this placement on a consistent basis. The therapist suggested that mother be given custody of the children in the near future. However, the therapist rated mothers coping skills, problem solving skills, anger management, and social skills as marginal, and her parenting skills, insight, impulse control, living skills, and academics as fair.

At times, mother, who turned 18 on October 17, 2006, indicated she would stay in the group home until she was 19, but on other occasions, she expressed her intent to leave the home immediately when she gets custody of her children.

At the review hearing, the social worker testified that the staff at the group home informed her that visits with B.R. were not going well, despite the contrary statement in the assessment report. The social worker indicated that she had conflicting statements from the staff and she was told, off the record, they just dont want to be too harsh on [mother].

DISCUSSION

Section 366.22, subdivision (a), provides: The court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child . . . would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.

Our review of the juvenile courts finding that returning the child to mothers custody would be detrimental is limited to considering whether substantial evidence supports the finding. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 619, 625.)

The juvenile courts findings are amply supported by the evidence. The department concedes that mother did complete certain requirements of her case plan, including anger management, parenting classes, and therapy. It contends, however, that she has not mitigated the problems that resulted in B.R.s removal. We agree.

Despite her accomplishments, the consensus of those people who have had contact with mother is that her daughter would be safe in her care only if they were supervised in a group home. In other words, no one believes that mother, on her own, can provide a safe environment for her daughter. Although mother is currently in a group home, she is 18 and can leave at anytime. No one can say with any assurance that she will remain in a supervised setting. She has exhibited impulsiveness and an inability to conform her behavior to group living. Indeed, shortly before the 18-month review hearing, she was involved in two incidents at the group home: one was a physical altercation with another resident and the other was a verbal confrontation with staff members.

It is apparent that she has not learned impulse control. Although she has received reunification services for the maximum period of time, it does not appear that she has matured to the extent that she can adequately parent her children. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.

The petition is denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P.J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2] When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. ( 5150.)