Filed 7/18/17 K.R. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

K.R.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

F075587

(Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ300258-1)


OPINION
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Leanne L. LeMon, Commissioner.
K.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
K.R. (mother), in propria persona, petitions for extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s orders issued at an uncontested 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)(1)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now two-year-old son, Elias. Mother offers an explanation as to why she was homeless toward the end of her reunification period, and asks that we direct the juvenile court to provide her reunification services. We conclude she forfeited any issues arising from the setting hearing and deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2015, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over then 11-month-old Elias after sustaining allegations that mother and Elias’s father engaged in domestic violence and used methamphetamine. The court ordered both parents to participate in reunification services, including twice weekly supervised visits. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) placed Elias with his paternal grandparents where he remained
Mother initially struggled to remain in substance abuse treatment and relapsed multiple times during the first five months of reunification. However, by late October 2016, she was making significant progress in all of her services, including drug treatment and domestic violence counseling. She completed inpatient drug treatment and three months of sober living. She also advanced to liberal visits with Elias and was very loving and caring with him. Consequently, the juvenile court continued her reunification services at the 12-month review hearing after finding there was a substantial probability Elias could be returned to her custody. The court, however, terminated reunification services for Elias’s father.
In November 2016, mother stopped participating in her domestic violence counseling and attending mental health therapy sessions. In addition, after completing three months of sober living, she found herself homeless and lost contact with the department. She also stopped participating in random drug testing. However, she visited Elias at his grandparents’ home once or twice a week for an hour or more. She knew he would not be safe where she was staying. In January 2017, the department arranged a meeting for mother with a substance abuse specialist who recommended she participate in a 30-day refresher at a residential treatment program. Mother declined, explaining that she was offered emergency housing and was going to accept. At the end of January, mother moved in with a sister in Biola, resumed liberal visitation, and in late February 2017, began 60 days of aftercare at another residential treatment facility. In the interim, she resumed random drug testing and tested positive for creatinine. On March 7, mother moved in with another sister in Parlier and had liberal visits with Elias from Friday through Sunday.
By the 18-month review hearing in May 2017, Elias’s father was incarcerated and mother had resumed a relationship with him. She disclosed to the social worker that father helped her during a period of homelessness and he physically assaulted her. The social worker obtained a police report documenting multiple incidents of domestic violence in December 2016, resulting in injury to mother.
In its report for the 18-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services because she had not benefitted from domestic violence counseling.
Mother challenged the department’s recommendation and the juvenile court set a contested hearing for May 2, 2017. The court modified mother’s visits to be supervised at a relative’s home. On the day of the hearing, mother withdrew her contest. Concerning the contest, county counsel explained the department agreed to maintain visitation as previously ordered instead of requesting a reduction in visitation to twice a month. Mother’s attorney stated, “we are in agreement and submitting on the settlement agreement.”
DISCUSSION
Mother suggests her period of homelessness from November 2016 to January 2017—and by implication, the eventual termination of reunification services—could have been avoided if the department had supported her desire to live with her sister in Parlier. She claims that after she completed sober living, she asked if she could live with her sister but the substance abuse specialist advised against it, preferring that she remain in Fresno. However, she had no family support in Fresno and could not get a job because of the time demands of her aftercare. As a result, she became homeless. When she asked the social worker for help, she was told there was not much the department could do. She subsequently found out she could have gotten emergency housing.
We conclude mother’s contention lacks merit and is forfeited. It lacks merit because, aside from her claim the department failed to assist her with housing, there is no evidence on the record to support it. More importantly, mother agreed to the termination of her reunification services in exchange for a continuance of the visitation order. Having consented, she cannot now claim that the juvenile court erred in terminating her services. (In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court.