Vivian D. v. Superior Court
Filed 4/11/06 Vivian D. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| VIVIAN D., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. |
F049586
(Super. Ct. No. JD107365)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
Vivian D., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] We will grant the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Pursuant to a dependency petition, petitioner's infant daughter A. was brought under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in July 2005 incident to petitioner's arrest for possession of methamphetamine. (§ 300, subd. (b).) A. was placed in the home of her maternal cousin in San Diego.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered petitioner to participate in substance abuse treatment, submit to random drug testing and complete a parenting course. The court also ordered supervised visitation and set the six-month review hearing for January 12, 2006.
In its six-month status review, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) reported that petitioner failed to comply with her court-ordered services and recommended the court terminate services. Specifically, the department reported that in June 2005, petitioner enrolled in a 36-week substance abuse treatment program and a 12-week parenting class but was dismissed from the programs in October for poor attendance. She reenrolled in both programs in December.
The department also reported that petitioner failed to drug test on a consistent basis and tested positive for methamphetamine in November. She also visited regularly with A. and visits went well. Given petitioner's noncompliance, the department recommended the court consider a permanent plan of adoption by A.'s maternal cousin.
On January 12, 2006, the court conducted an uncontested six-month review hearing on the department's recommendations. Counsel for petitioner made an offer of proof that petitioner tested negative for drugs on December 2 and December 14, 2005, and January 4 and January 10, 2006. Counsel also argued that petitioner completed 8 of 12 parenting classes and 12 of 24 substance abuse classes. Counsel argued the court should continue services because it was likely petitioner could complete them in another six months. Minor's counsel agreed, arguing that petitioner participated in her services and was making progress. Minor's counsel also pointed out the discrepancy between petitioner's counseling report which reflected that substance abuse was a 36-week program and petitioner's claim that it was a 24-week program. The discrepancy was not resolved and dropped. County counsel argued that petitioner failed to regularly participate in and make substantive progress in her case plan. The court agreed and also found there was not a substantial probability A. would be returned to petitioner's care after another six months of services. Consequently, the court terminated services and set the section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in terminating reunification services. We agree.
Generally, reunification services are limited to six months in cases such as this where the child was under the age of three years when removed from parental custody. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(2).) The purpose of the six-month limitation on services is to provide the juvenile court greater flexibility in meeting the needs of young children where the â€
