Lanecia M. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 8/9/06 Lanecia M. v. Sup. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

Under California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B, petitioner Lanecia M. (Lanecia) seeks review of an order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.^[1] She argues that the order was erroneous because real party in interest, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (CFS), did not provide reasonable services. Her contention has no merit, and we will affirm the order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lanecia is the mother of minor children D.S., C.M., R.S., and K.S. In June 2000, the juvenile court sustained CFS's dependency petition and assumed jurisdiction over the children pursuant to section 300, after CFS had received approximately 25 complaints of Lanecia's neglect.

The children remained in Lanecia's care until January 2001, when they were detained due to her drug use and the condition of the home. The children were subsequently placed in foster care. Reunification services were provided.

On August 14, 2002, the court terminated services and ordered long-term foster care, finding that Lanecia had received reasonable family maintenance services and family reunification services. CFS contended that long-term foster care was appropriate because Lanecia's home still did not offer a safe environment for the children and she was unable to find other housing.

On December 28, 2004, Lanecia filed a petition under section 388, seeking modification of the order for long-term foster care. She noted that she had obtained a stable residence, completed Proposition 36 drug treatment, and attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings. CFS did not oppose the petition, which was granted on January 12, 2005. CFS provided the court with a new reunification plan on February 10, 2005.

On February 24, 2005, however, CFS filed a section 388 petition requesting that the court terminate reunification services and reinstate a permanent plan of long-term foster care. CFS asserted that the children did not want to reunify, R.S.'s therapist was recommending that visitation be suspended, K.S.'s therapist believed that visits and reunification would be counterproductive, and reunification services would only confuse the children and destabilize their progress.

On April 5, 2005, the court reinstated the permanent plan of long-term foster care and ordered that supervised visitation should be considered pursuant to In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1227 (Danielle W.) (court may order visitation to take place at discretion of children and social service agency). Although not reflected in the minute order, the parties understood that the court was also ordering therapeutic visits, which the juvenile court would later characterize as family therapy to repair the relationship between Lanecia and her children, rather than services for the purpose of reunification.

On July 7, 2005, CFS advised the court that it was having difficulty providing Lanecia with therapeutic visits. The children's therapists and counselors were unavailable or unwilling to provide the sessions. Anita Knight, a YWCA intern whom Lanecia had been seeing for counseling, was willing to conduct family therapy sessions, however, and the children's social worker, Lily Choi, attended the sessions on June 27 and August 22, 2005.

According to CFS's report for a September 26, 2005 review hearing, â€