In re Jasmine G.

Filed 10/24/06 In re Jasmine G. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Petition denied.

Donna Wright Bernstein, under appointment by the Superior Court, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, and Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

______________________________

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Leticia F. (mother) is the mother of Jasmine G., who was detained at approximately two months of age.[1] In a petition for extraordinary writ, mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating reunification services and scheduling a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[2] to implement a long term plan for Jasmine. Specifically, mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by finding that real party in interest, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided reasonable reunification services.

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court finding that the DCFS provided mother with reasonable reunification services.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Jasmine Is Taken into Protective Custody

On October 2, 2005, at approximately 4:30 a.m., mother woke her neighbor by knocking loudly on the neighbor’s door. Mother was holding Jasmine, who was dressed in only a diaper. The neighbor gave mother a blanket because of the cold weather. Mother then ran off and placed Jasmine in some bushes next to a train track. One minute later, mother retrieved Jasmine from the bushes and continued down the street. The neighbor telephoned the police.

When the police arrived, mother stated that she had been using alcohol and cocaine. Hearing noises outside her residence and thinking that someone intended to hurt Jasmine, mother ran from her residence seeking help.

A police officer at the scene described mother as sweating profusely with rapid speech, unable to sit still and unable to make eye contact.

The police took Jasmine into protective custody and arrested mother for child endangerment and being under the influence of a controlled substance. At the time of her arrest, mother was on probation for a felony conviction (convicted Aug. 31, 2004), for possession of a controlled substance for sale.

On October 3, 2005, the police placed mother in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, California.

2. DCFS Files Juvenile Dependency Petition

On October 5, 2005, the DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition alleged that mother was a frequent user of cocaine and alcohol, which rendered mother incapable of providing regular care for Jasmine and endangered her physical and emotional health. That day, the juvenile court conducted a detention hearing. Mother was present for the hearing. The juvenile court appointed counsel for mother. The court detained Jasmine and ordered her placed into shelter care.

The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide mother reunification services. The court ordered the DCFS to ensure at least weekly monitored visits for mother if she was incarcerated within a reasonable distance.

3. Mother Is Sentenced

On October 26, 2005, a criminal court revoked mother’s probation. The court sentenced mother to two years in state prison.

4. Post-Detention Reunification Services

By the time of the November 14, 2005, hearing mother had not had any visits with Jasmine. She remained incarcerated at the Twin Towers jail on a parole hold.

Following detention, the DCFS moved Jasmine twice and placed her into two different foster homes. The DCFS was working with Jasmine’s new foster mother to arrange transportation to the jail.

The DCFS had not interviewed mother. The DCFS social worker had made one attempt to meet with mother, but the jail facility was on lock-down. The detainees were not permitted visits during the lock-down. The social worker, however, did send mother a list of counseling referrals.

Mother appeared for the November 14, 2005 hearing. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to investigate programs where mother could reside with Jasmine while in custody. The court also ordered the DCFS to interview mother.

5. Mother Receives Visitation and Is Transferred to a New Prison

During the first week of December 2005, the prison officials transferred mother to Chowchilla State Prison in Chowchilla, California,[3] where she was placed on an immigration hold. The DCFS social worker learned from the prison officials that there were no programs at Chowchilla that would allow mother to reside with Jasmine.

Prior to the transfer, the DCFS provided mother with two visits with Jasmine. A third visit was cancelled because the jail facility was on lock-down. A fourth visit did not occur because of mother’s transfer to the Chowchilla State Prison.

In addition, prior to the transfer to Chowchilla, the DCFS social worker was able to interview mother. Mother admitted using drugs and acknowledged it was wrong. Mother also stated that if Jasmine’s father did not seek custody of the child, she wanted the child placed with a maternal aunt in Mexico.

On December 14, 2005, the juvenile court ordered the DCFS to initiate an international study on the maternal aunt in Mexico.

6. Mother Is Transferred to Another Prison

According to a January 20, 2006, “Information for Court Officer,” in January 2006, the prison officials transferred mother from Chowchilla State Prison to the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Center in Live Oak, California. The Leo Chesney prison was located 50 miles north of Sacramento. It appears that mother remained in this prison for the remainder of her sentence.

Mother’s counselor at the prison advised the DCFS that mother’s release date was September 2, 2006. The counselor noted that mother would be deported after completing her sentence. In addition, the Leo Chesney prison did not have a program that would have allowed Jasmine to reside with mother.

Mother did not waive her appearance for the adjudication hearing set for January 20, 2006. The prison officials could not release mother to attend the hearing. The DCFS had initiated procedures to have mother transported from the Chowchilla prison. Because of mother’s recent relocation, the DCFS was unable to process the necessary paperwork to have her transported in time for the hearing from the Leo Chesney prison.

Because mother could not appear, the juvenile court continued the adjudication hearing. The court ordered the DCFS to prepare a removal order for mother.

7. Mexican Officials’ Complete Home Study

By March 23, 2006, the appropriate Mexican officials had completed the study of the maternal aunt. The report indicated that the maternal aunt was a suitable placement for Jasmine.

8. Adjudication Hearing

After two additional continuances, on April 6, 2006, mother appeared and submitted to the juvenile court jurisdiction based upon the social worker’s reports. The juvenile court sustained the section 300 juvenile dependency petition.

The court ordered mother to complete a drug rehabilitation program with random weekly testing, parenting education, and individual counseling. The court also ordered her to attend Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings. Mother signed the court-ordered disposition case plan.

In addition, the court ordered the DCFS to investigate the programs available to mother at the Leo Chesney prison. The court found that the DCFS had provided reasonable reunification services to mother.

9. Mother’s Compliance with Case Plan

Mother’s prison counselor updated the DCFS with respect to mother’s participation in her case plan. By May 31, 2006, mother had attended twice monthly AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)/NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings. She was also participating in a self-help group.

Mother, however, had missed the parenting class, which had already begun. After speaking with mother’s DCFS social worker, mother’s prison counselor granted mother permission to begin participation in the ongoing parenting class.

10. Jasmine Is Placed with Maternal Aunt in Mexico

On June 26, 2006, the DCFS transported Jasmine to Mexico, where she was placed with her maternal aunt.

11. Six-Month Review Hearing

Mother waived her appearance for the six-month review hearing. At the hearing on July 11, 2006, the juvenile court found that the DCFS had provided reasonable reunification services. The court also found that mother had not regularly participated in the court-ordered case plan. The court found that mother had not made substantive progress in the treatment plan. The court found that there was no substantial probability that Jasmine would be returned to the physical custody of mother within the next six months. The court terminated reunification services.

The juvenile court scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for November 9, 2006. Mother’s attorney timely filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition on behalf of mother.

CONTENTIONS

Mother contends that the trial court’s finding that the DCFS had provided reasonable reunification services was not supported by substantial evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review for substantial evidence. (In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763.)

DISCUSSION

The Juvenile Court Finding that the DCFS Had Provided Reasonable

Reunification Services Is Supported by Substantial Evidence

Mother contends that the DCFS did not provide her with reasonable reunification services, and that the juvenile court should therefore have ordered the DCFS to provide an additional six months of reunification services. We reject mother’s assertion.

Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2), provides that when a child on the date of initial removal is under the age of three, “court-ordered services shall not exceed a period of six months from the date the child entered foster care.”

Section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3), provides that notwithstanding subdivision (a)(2), “court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent . . . if it can be shown . . . that he or she will be returned and safely maintained in the home within the extended time period. The court shall extend the time period only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of his or her parent . . . within the extended time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.” (Italics added.)

In addition, section 361.5, subdivision (e), required the DCFS to provide reunification services to mother while incarcerated, unless the juvenile court determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that such services would be detrimental to the child. In addition, subdivision (e) provided that “[s]ervices may include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following: (A) Maintaining contact between the parent and child through collect telephone calls. (B) Transportation services, where appropriate. (C) Visitation services, where appropriate. (D) Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the child if the services are not detrimental to the child.” Subdivision (e) further provides: “An incarcerated parent may be required to attend counseling, parenting classes, or vocational training programs as part of the service plan if these programs are available.”

A. Visitation

In this case, mother asserts that the reunification services were allegedly unreasonable because she was inappropriately denied visitation with Jasmine. We reject this assertion.

Mother was taken into custody on October 2, 2005. The following day, she was placed in the Twin Towers jail in Los Angeles County. On October 5, 2005, the juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide mother with at least weekly visits if she was incarcerated within a reasonable distance from Jasmine.

During the October 5 to November 15, 2005, time period, mother did not receive any visits with Jasmine. However, during this time period, the DCFS had to move Jasmine, placing her into two different foster homes. Obviously, securing a suitable placement for Jasmine, an infant child, was the first priority of the DCFS.

In any event, the DCFS worked with Jasmine’s new foster placement to arrange visitation with mother. The DCFS efforts to arrange transportation were successful. During the time period from November 15, 2005 to early December 2005, when prison officials transferred mother to Chowchilla, the DCFS arranged four visits for mother and Jasmine.

Two visits occurred. In addition, two visits were cancelled during this time period for reasons beyond DCFS control; one because of a jail lock-down and the other because of mother’s transfer to the Chowchilla facility.

After mother’s transfer to the Chowchilla and the Live Oak prison facilities, mother did not have any visits with Jasmine. However, it is apparent that these facilities were not within a reasonable distance to Jasmine, and therefore the juvenile court order did not require the DCFS to arrange visitation.

In conclusion, the record shows that while mother was housed within a reasonable distance, the DCFS provided mother with sufficient visitation under the circumstances. Factors beyond DCFS control impeded the efforts to arrange visitation--the re-placement of Jasmine into a new foster home, the jail lock-down, and mother’s transfer to the Chowchilla facility.

B. Other Reunification Services

Mother also asserts that the DCFS failed to work with the officials at both of mother’s prison facilities to provide mother with reunification services. We reject this assertion.

At the first two hearings in October and November 2005, the juvenile court ordered the DCFS to provide reunification services, including visitation and ascertaining whether mother could be placed with Jasmine. The DCFS complied with the juvenile court order.

Mother remained at the Chowchilla facility for approximately six to eight weeks. In compliance with the juvenile court order, the DCFS social worker contacted a prison official to ascertain whether Jasmine could be placed with mother.

In January 2006, the prison officials transferred mother to the Live Oak facility. In early April 2006, at the jurisdiction/adjudication hearing, the juvenile court ordered mother to complete drug rehabilitation, parenting education and individual counseling, and to attend NA meetings.

By the end of May 2006, mother was enrolled in AA/NA and a self-help group. In addition, the record shows that the DCFS assisted mother with accomplishing other aspects of her case plan. In April 2006, the prison officials refused to permit mother to join an ongoing parenting class. The DCFS social worker intervened on mother’s behalf, and spoke with her prison counselor. The social worker was able to convince the prison counselor to allow mother to enroll in the ongoing parenting class. In addition, as required by the juvenile court, the DCFS investigated whether Jasmine could live with mother at the Live Oak facility.

Based upon the foregoing, the record contains substantial evidence to support the juvenile court finding that in the circumstances of this case, the DCFS provided mother with reasonable reunification services.

DISPOSITION

Mother’s writ petition is denied. No costs are awarded.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KITCHING, J.

We concur:

CROSKEY, Acting P. J.

ALDRICH, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

[1] Jasmine’s father is not a party to these writ proceedings.

[2] Unless otherwise indicated, all unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[3] The parties did not identify the location of the Chowchilla State Prison. The website for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identifies the Chowchilla State Prison as the “Valley State Prison for Women.” On our own motion, we take judicial notice that this prison is in Chowchilla, California, which is located approximately 250 miles from downtown Los Angeles, California.