Filed 10/16/17 Bonnie P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
| BONNIE P.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY,
Respondent;
TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
|
F075967
(Super. Ct. No. JV7627)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge.
Bonnie P., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Sarah Carrillo, County Counsel, and Cody M. Nesper, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Bonnie P. (mother), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s order issued at a postpermanency review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3)[1] setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now eight-year-old daughter, M.T. We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Six-year-old M.T. and her half brother, T.S., were taken into protective custody in July 2015 by the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services (department) after sheriff’s deputies arrested mother on felony warrants. Mother and the children were living in a recreational vehicle cluttered with debris, in some places reaching the ceiling. There were soiled diapers in the entryway and on the floor, a heavy smell of urine, and molding and rotting food on the kitchen counter and sink. Mother was unkempt, with messy hair, dirt under her fingernails and toenails and stained clothing. She admitted she and her boyfriend, Zane, used methamphetamine that day while caring for the children. M.T. was dirty and wearing a dirty dress and a broken sandal. T.S. was covered in dirt and playing outside wearing only a diaper.
Mother met with social workers the following day. She had “pick marks” on her face and arms and appeared thin and pale. She said she relapsed approximately a month before after an incident with her stepfather. She explained she and the children were living with her stepfather when she awoke in the middle of the night to discover him naked and approaching the family. Mother directed him to go back to his bedroom. Instead, he “sat his naked bottom on [M.T.’s] face.” Mother contacted the sheriff’s department and he was arrested. She and the children left a few weeks after the incident and moved into the recreational vehicle.
The juvenile court ordered M.T. detained pursuant to a dependency petition, alleging mother’s drug abuse and failure to provide her adequate shelter placed her at a substantial risk of harm, mother left her without provision or support and mother neglected T.S. (§ 300, subds. (b)(1), (g) & (j).) The petition also alleged that M.T.’s father, Fred B., left M.T. without provision or support and neglected her half siblings in 2001. Fred’s whereabouts were initially unknown. The department subsequently learned he was living somewhere in Mexico. The department placed the children together in foster care.
The department reported that mother had a lengthy history of addiction to substances and was the subject of numerous referrals, alleging she used drugs, lived in unsanitary and unsafe home conditions and left the children with unsuitable caregivers. The department recommended the juvenile court order mother to comply with the Dependency Drug Court (DDC) family reunification services and deny the children’s fathers reunification services.
In September 2015, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the department’s recommendations and set a six-month review hearing for February 2016.
Over the ensuing months, mother struggled with her drug addiction. She did not participate in substance abuse services, she tested positive for drugs and missed visits with the children. She also left drug treatment twice and was terminated from the DDC.
By February 2016, mother was homeless and she and Zane were using drugs and engaging in domestic violence. The children were placed in separate foster homes for T.S.’s safety after M.T. attempted to smother him by covering his nose and mouth on more than one occasion. She said she attempted it in the past by placing a pillow over his face. She showed no expression and little to no remorse in describing her actions. She also attempted to harm pets several times and displayed sexualized behavior toward another foster child. The department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services.
In March 2016, following a contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for June 28, 2016. The court also ordered one supervised visit a month for mother with M.T.
In the intervening months, mother continued to use methamphetamine. In May 2016, she was arrested for petty theft, cited and released. Two weeks later, she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, possession and transporting a controlled substance for sale and conspiracy to commit a crime.
In its report for the June 28, 2016 hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s parental rights as to T.S. and continue the section 366.26 hearing as to M.T. for 180 days to assess her mental and emotional needs and identify a prospective adoptive family.
On June 28, 2016, the juvenile court convened the section 366.26 hearing and terminated mother’s parental rights as to T.S. The court continued the hearing as to M.T. to January 17, 2017, so the department could further assess her adoptability.
By January 17, 2017, the department had not identified an adoptive home for M.T. and the adoption specialist opined it was not in her best interest to terminate parental rights at that time. In addition, M.T. had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and conduct disorder and required specialized therapy. Consequently, the department recommended the juvenile court order M.T. into foster care with a goal of adoption.
On January 17, 2017, at the continued section 366.26 hearing, mother appeared through her attorney and the court noted that mother was trying to get into drug court. After the parties submitted on the department’s recommendation, the court ordered M.T. into a permanent plan of foster care and set a postpermanency review hearing for June 27, 2017.
In its report for the June 27 hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to change M.T.’s permanent plan to adoption. M.T. was bonded to her foster parents and doing well in their care. She was also meeting or exceeding her grade requirements in school and making “great” progress in trauma focused therapy. M.T.’s foster parents stated she brought so much joy to their lives that they wanted to adopt her. The department reported that, though mother called to schedule visits, she did not show up. She last visited M.T. on December 1, 2016.
On June 27, 2017, mother appeared in custody with her attorney and submitted on the recommendation to set a section 366.26 hearing. The court set the hearing for October 17, 2017.
DISCUSSION
When the juvenile court orders a child into foster care at a section 366.26 hearing, it must review the child’s permanent plan every six months to determine whether the plan is still appropriate. (§§ 366.26, subd. (b)(7); 366.3, subd. (d).) If it appears the child is suitable for adoption, the preferred permanent plan, the court must set a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.3, subd. (h)(1).)
Here, by the postpermanency review hearing in June 2017, M.T.’s foster parents wanted to adopt her. Consequently, the court had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing to determine whether adoption was more appropriate for her. Mother does not contend the court erred in setting the hearing. Rather, she seeks to raise evidentiary issues and due process violations dating back to the detention hearing. Such challenges, however, are not cognizable on appeal because the court’s findings and orders issued prior to the June 27, 2017 postpermanency hearing are now final and binding. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150 [unappealed postdisposition orders are final and binding].)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.
