Maria G. v. Sup.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF
MARIA G., Petitioner, v. THE Respondent; | D049424 ( Super. |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. |
PROCEEDINGS in mandate after referral to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Michael J. Imhoff, Commissioner. Petition denied.
Maria G. seeks writ review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency plan hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We deny the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Maria G. is the mother of Marisol G., who was born in November 1999. A few days after her birth, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) detained the child in foster care. The Agency alleged Maria was unable to provide adequate care for the baby due to her mental health condition, diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations. She previously lost custody of three other children due to suicidal and homicidal ideation.
Maria's mental health condition did not stabilize during the reunification period. In March 2002, Marisol was placed in the custody of her father, who lived with his wife, her two older daughters, and their young son. The court dismissed dependency jurisdiction in November 2002.
In March 2005, the Agency removed five-year-old Marisol from her father's custody after her stepsisters alleged he had sexually abused them. Marisol was adjudicated a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (j). Shortly before the disposition hearing, the Agency located Maria, who was then living with her sister near Los Angeles.
Maria's mental health case manager reported that Maria was compliant with her medications, met regularly with her psychiatrist and therapist, and had " greatly" improved her mental health condition. Maria told the social worker she last saw Marisol in November 2004 and wanted to reunify with her. The court adjudicated Marisol a dependent of the court, ordered Maria to participate in a psychological evaluation, and ordered the Agency to provide family reunification services to Maria.[2]
After the disposition hearing, Maria began individual therapy and parenting classes. She received in-home support services in June and July 2005, but did not remain in contact with the service agency. The Agency also facilitated supervised visitation. Maria was affectionate with Marisol; however, Marisol did not have a well-established relationship with her mother. After a visit, Marisol asked, " Who is that lady who keeps kissing me?"
In November 2005, the court found that Maria made minimal progress in alleviating or mitigating the causes that necessitated the child's continued placement in foster care and ordered reunification services to continue. Later that month, Maria completed a two-day psychological evaluation with Beatriz Heller, Ph.D. Heller considered Maria's prognosis " extremely guarded" due to her lengthy history of schizophrenia and personality disorders. Heller opined Maria's ability to become the principal caretaker for a child was extremely limited.
During the second review period, Maria completed parenting classes, consistently attended individual therapy, complied with medication, and regularly visited Marisol. Maria was compliant with her case plan but was unable to maintain a stable residence or employment.
In April 2006, Nancy Solomon, M.D., a physician with Mental Health Systems, Inc., reported Maria had been her patient during the past year and was committed to her treatment program. Maria's mental health condition was diagnosed as schizophrenia paranoid/mild type. Solomon stated that Maria's mental health condition was stable and permitted reunification, and Maria did not pose any threat to her child. Therapist Rosita Cortiza, Psy.D., M.F.T., M.A., opined Maria showed insight into her children's needs and understood the importance of providing for them financially.
The contested 12-month review hearing was held on
The court found by clear and convincing evidence it would be detrimental to Marisol to return to parental custody. The court reasoned that although Maria was making progress, she was not able to provide Marisol with stable and appropriate housing. In addition, Marisol's relationship with Maria had significant unresolved issues and Marisol's therapist was concerned about the child's ability to function if she was placed in a stressful situation. The court terminated reunification services and set a permanency plan hearing under section 366.26.
DISCUSSION
I
Maria contends the court erred when it found returning Marisol to her mother's custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. She contends she complied with the requirements of her case plan and argues the court abused its discretion when it did not appropriately consider her compliance and progress in determining whether to return Marisol to her custody.
The Agency contends the argument portion of Maria's writ petition lacks citation to the record and asks this court to dismiss the writ as defective under California Rules of Court,[3] rules 8.204(a)(1)(C)[4] and 8.452(b)(3).[5] On the merits, the Agency maintains substantial evidence supports the court's finding that return to Maria's custody would be detrimental to the child.
II
Under rule 8.452(a)(E)(3), a writ petition to review an order setting a hearing under section 366.26 and rule 5.600[6] must be accompanied by a memorandum. The memorandum " must support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the record. The memorandum should explain the significance of any cited portion of the record and note any disputed aspects of the record." (Rule 8.452(b)(3).) In addition to these requirements, rule 8.204(1)(C) requires each brief to " [s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." (See rules 8.412(a), 8.360(a).)
Rule 8.452 directs the appellate courts to liberally construe petitions (rule 8.452(a)(2)), and urges the courts to review petitions on the merits " absent exceptional circumstances" (rule 8.452(i)(1)). Here, Maria's petition was timely filed and raised a specific legal issue -- the adequacy of the court's finding of detriment in view of her progress and compliance with services. The memorandum attached to the petition contains a statement of the case and facts with citations to the record. Maria's relatively short argument is supported by legal authority, but the factual references in the argument are not supported with citations to the record. Nevertheless, we liberally construe the petition in favor of its sufficiency. (Rule 8.452(a)(2).) The petition summarizes the particular factual bases supporting the petition, refers to specific portions of the record, relates the facts to the grounds alleged as error, and provides a particularized memorandum of points and authorities. (Cheryl S. v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005.) Absent exceptional circumstances, we review the petition on the merits as directed by rule 8.452(i)(1). (See also rule 8.204(e)(2)(C) [the reviewing court may disregard noncompliance of a brief].)
III
At the 12-month review hearing, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child (detriment finding or finding of detriment). The social worker has the burden of establishing that detriment. In making its determination, the court is required to review and consider the social worker's report and recommendations. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).)
Maria contends the court abused its discretion when it did not consider her compliance with the reunification plan and the progress she made in stabilizing her mental health condition. Maria argues the social worker's opinion and recommendations were not reasonable in view of the conclusion of her doctor and therapist that she was stable and could safely parent a child, and thus the court's finding of detriment was not supported by substantial evidence.
Section 366.21, subdivision (f) requires the court to consider the parent's compliance with services and the effort or progress, or both, made by the parent to alleviate or mitigate the causes that necessitate the child's initial or continued placement in foster care. Here, the court reviewed the social worker's reports documenting Maria's compliance with her case plan. The court commended Maria for her consistent participation in therapy and found that she was making progress in treating her mental illness. The court also reviewed the visitation logs and determined Maria regularly contacted and visited her daughter. The record shows the court fully considered the nature and extent of Maria's compliance with services, and her efforts and progress toward reunification. Thus, the court fulfilled the obligations imposed under section 366.21, subdivision (f), and did not abuse its discretion.
Maria also contends insufficient evidence supports the finding of detriment. The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.) Substantial evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 833.) The reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 415.)
A parent's general compliance with the case plan and substantive progress is an important indicator that reunification can be achieved; however, technical compliance with the requirements of the reunification plan does not automatically result in the child's return to parental custody. (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1140, 1143.) Although Maria's doctor and therapist opined that Maria's mental health condition was stabilized and she did not pose a threat to her child, substantial evidence supports the court's finding of detriment.
Psychologist Heller opined Maria's mental condition greatly reduced her ability to develop an appropriate parent-child relationship and safe parenting skills. Although the frequency of Maria's hallucinations had decreased, they still occurred. Heller believed that with ongoing psychiatric treatment Maria would achieve greater stability in her life, but her ability to become the principal caretaker for a child was extremely limited. Her current instability of residence and employment reflected difficulties associated with her mental condition. During the preceding six months, Maria did not maintain any residence for more than a few weeks. She did not recognize any negative effect that an unstable living situation would have on a young child, stating only that Marisol " would live where I live and eat what I eat."
In determining whether to return Marisol to parental custody, the court also appropriately considered Marisol's specific needs. Due to Marisol's behaviors, such as compulsive cleaning, her therapist opined that Marisol was at risk of developing mental health problems. She needed skilled and affectionate parents, and would regress if placed in a stressful situation. The social worker observed interactions between Maria and Marisol, and concluded that Maria was unable to relate to the child at the child's level and could not meet the child's emotional needs.
The trial court properly reviewed the evidence and made a sound and reasoned decision. Despite Maria's compliance with her case plan and progress in stabilizing her mental health condition, substantial evidence supports the court's finding that return to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to Marisol's safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] Marisol's father left the state and did not participate in the dependency proceedings.
[3] All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
[4] Former rule 14, renumbered rule 8.204 and amended, effective
[5] Former rule 38.1, renumbered rule 8.452 and amended, effective
[6] Former rule 1436.5, renumbered rule 5.600 and amended, effective
