Pamela P. v. Superior Court

Filed 4/04/06 Pamela P. v. Superior Court CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Pamela P. (Mother), the mother of the minor Samantha B., filed this petition for an extraordinary writ under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, seeking to vacate an order of the trial court setting a hearing for the termination of her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother maintains there was no sufficient showing of a substantial risk of detriment to Samantha if she were returned to Mother's home. Mother claims the trial court also erred in ruling that her reunification services should be terminated because she had not sufficiently complied with the provisions of her reunification plan, and she requests six more months of such services. Mother's claims are without merit, and we therefore deny the petition.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We set forth only the factual background most relevant to Mother's writ petition.

The minor in issue, Samantha, is now three years old, and has been the subject of repeated serious parenting problems that came to the attention of the authorities, most of them following substantiated reports of neglect. For instance, Mother left Samantha locked in a car with the windows rolled up on a summer day, and Samantha had to be revived by paramedics. Later, Samantha and Mother were found living amid piles of rubbish in the basement of a bar which is a notorious site of methamphetamine abuse. Mother's judgment was apparently impaired by substance abuse, and she had refused to be tested consistently for drug use.

It was ultimately determined that leaving the minor in the care of Mother would be unsafe. Samantha was then placed with her maternal grandmother, who has given her good care.

Mother did not fully comply with any aspects of the reunification plan. She refused to be tested consistently for drug abuse and did not complete other aspects of her reunification plan that were designed to deal with the drug abuse problem that had led to neglect of Samantha's needs.

After a hearing, the trial court found that reasonable reunification services had been provided, Mother had not complied with the terms of her reunification plan, and the return of the minor to Mother's home would create a substantial risk to her well being. The court ordered that reunification services should be terminated for Mother, and the matter was set for hearing on a permanent plan, including the possible termination of Mother's parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.

II. DISCUSSION

Mother contends in her writ petition that there was no sufficient showing that the minor would suffer a substantial risk of detriment if she were returned to Mother's home. Mother also claims the court erred in finding that she had not substantially complied with the terms of her reunification plan, and Mother suggests her reunification services should therefore be extended for another six months.

We may only review the court's findings for substantial evidence. (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762 (Angela S.).) â€