J. B. v. Contra Costa Super. Ct

Filed 6/16/06 J. B. v. Contra Costa Super. Ct CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

J. B. (Mother) petitions for review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); all rule and section references are to those sources) of an order made at a six-month review of March 17, 2006, terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing) for her infant son, J.S. (Son). Mother claims insufficient evidence for findings that reasonable services were offered and that there was no substantial probability of Son's return within the allowed time. We reject the claims.

Background

Birth through Disposition

Son was born on June 20, 2005 (unspecified dates are in 2005) and taken straight into emergency foster care. Baby and Mother tested positive for amphetamines. While in the hospital, Mother admitted having used methamphetamines during the pregnancy; and her breath smelled of marijuana. Mother had an extensive child welfare history, first as a foster child herself from ages 7 to 16, and then for alleged neglect and physical abuse of older children, born to her at ages 18 and 20, who were not now dependents but were no longer in her care. A petition filed on June 22 by the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Agency (FSA) alleged failure to protect. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Son was detained the next day and never left foster care. The court in late June authorized FSA to place him with Mother in an approved residential drug treatment program, but Mother never entered a program. On July 1, Mother pled no contest to amended allegations that she had a substance abuse history that impaired her ability to care for and supervise Son The alleged father was locally incarcerated and would remain so throughout these proceedings.

Mother did not show for disposition hearing dates on July 26 and August 23, and, as she later admitted in testimony, was using drugs throughout the summer. According to a disposition report of July 21, she was referred to drug testing but failed to keep her appointment, failed to show for an intake interview for a residential treatment program at La Casa, failed to maintain contact with her social worker, and so far had only one visit with Son on July 6. When she missed a third scheduled hearing date, on September 9, the court nevertheless proceeded with disposition, ordered services under a case plan drafted back in July, made a finding of reasonable services and efforts to date, and set a six-month review for December 27. Mother did not appeal that appealable order (§ 395), and our current review is confined to later events. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811; In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 206.)

â€