Diane G. v. Superior Court
Filed 9/15/06 Diane G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| DIANE G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. |
F050701
(Super. Ct. No. 05CEJ300078-1)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
Diane G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to her daughter A. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner suffers from a mental disorder which manifests in persecutory delusions. One such manifestation occurred in early May 2005 just after petitioner dropped then four-year-old A. off at daycare. Petitioner saw a police officer nearby and, believing that the police officer was after her, she sped away and ran a red light. The police officer gave chase and petitioner collided with another vehicle after which she was reportedly violent and aggressive with the officer and the driver of the other vehicle. Because of her erratic behavior, petitioner was involuntarily committed. A. was taken into protective custody by the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) and placed in foster care.
This was not petitioner's first involuntary commitment. She was admitted to the hospital in September 2004 following unusual behavior at a local high school and then again when police officers went to her apartment to check on A.'s welfare. Petitioner's mother and sister told the social worker that petitioner was having mental health problems but refused to get help.
The juvenile court ordered A. detained and, in June, ordered petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation. In July, the court suspended petitioner's visitation because of her inappropriate behavior.
Petitioner completed her psychological evaluation in August. The psychologist concluded petitioner suffers from a form of delusional disorder. Though the disorder does not involve the bizarre delusions characterized by the more well-known psychotic disorders nevertheless petitioner's persecutory delusions sufficiently influenced her behavior that it rendered her unable to properly care for A. Whether petitioner would be able to reunify with A. depended, in the psychologist's opinion, on her willingness to accept â€
