Jennifer B. v. Superior Court

Filed 5/23/06  Jennifer B. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ.  Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)

            Zachary S. Curtis for Petitioner.

            No appearance for Respondent.

            David A. Prentice, County Counsel, and Miranda P. Neal, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

            Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing^[1] as to her son N.  We will deny the petition.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

            In June 2005, then 21-month-old N. was taken into protective custody by the Madera County Department of Public Welfare (department) after N.'s 13-day-old sister A. was found dead under suspicious circumstances while in petitioner's care.  Petitioner was questioned by police but no charges were filed pending the results of an autopsy.  The record is silent as to what the autopsy revealed or whether criminal charges were ever filed. 

            Petitioner admitted to the investigating social worker that she used methamphetamine.  She also claimed that a scar discovered on N.'s stomach was accidentally caused when he was burned by a crack pipe.

            The department filed a dependency petition on N.'s behalf alleging petitioner's drug use and the suspicious circumstances of A.'s death placed N. at a substantial risk of harm.  (§  300, subds. (b) (failure to protect) & (j) (abuse of sibling).)  The department placed N. with his maternal aunt (aunt).

            The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction and ordered a plan of reunification, which required petitioner to participate in individual counseling, complete a parenting course, participate in out-patient drug treatment and submit to random drug testing.  According to the plan, petitioner's individual counseling was to include grief counseling associated with A.'s death and domestic violence.  The court set the six-month review hearing for January 27, 2006.

            On July 19, 2005, petitioner's caseworker referred her for substance abuse counseling, parenting and mental health counseling.  On the referral, the social worker expressed his concern for petitioner's mental health and specifically requested grief counseling and a mental health assessment.  The caseworker also gave petitioner vouchers for transportation.  However, petitioner was slow to initiate services and resistant to them when she did.  She enrolled in a 15-week parenting course in September but quit going because of transportation problems.  She enrolled in a seven-week parenting course in November but was terminated from the course after failing to attend the first two sessions.

            In mid-October 2005, petitioner completed a substance abuse assessment and was referred for inpatient drug treatment after she confided to the counselor that she needed help.  The drug counselor secured an inpatient bed for petitioner and her caseworker personally took her to her physician for the required medical clearance but petitioner refused to admit herself.  She also continued to test positive for methamphetamine and visited N. only sporadically.  One of those visits occurred on the day N. was celebrating his second birthday.  Petitioner was unaware that it was his birthday.

            In light of petitioner's poor compliance, the department recommended in its six-month status report dated January 27, 2006, that the court terminate petitioner's services and consider a permanent plan of adoption.  The department reported that N. was not significantly attached to petitioner and that there was no affectionate interaction between them.  Instead, N. was emotionally bonded to his aunt who he called â€