Rachel B. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 1/9/07 Rachel B. v. Sup. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
RACHEL B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent, MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. | F051377 (Super. Ct. No. 27322) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Frank Dougherty, Judge.
Lawrence T. Niermeyer, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and James B. Tarhalla, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 [formerly 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 son A. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is ayoung woman in her early twenties with a history of substance abuse but more significantly, a propensity for involving herself romantically with violent men. She and her ex-husband, A.'s father, engaged in domestic violence and, at the initiation of the instant dependency proceedings, she was living with Adam, who during their relationship, beat an ex-girlfriend's puppy to death.
In July 2005, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) substantiated a report that then three-year-old A. sustained marks and bruises on his buttocks and forehead. Petitioner provided varying accounts as to how A. sustained the injuries. She first claimed A. hit his head on a kitchen cabinet. She later claimed he fell out of the car seat. However, she also filed a police report accusing Adam of hitting A. with a belt and obtained a restraining order against Adam. In a subsequent attempt to absolve Adam, petitioner recanted and blamed A.'s father for the bruises even though the whereabouts of A.'s father were then unknown to her.
The agency took A. into protective custody and placed him with his paternal grandparents and filed a dependency petition on his behalf, alleging petitioner failed to protect him. (§ 300, subd. (b).) At the jurisdictional hearing in August 2005, the juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation and set the matter for disposition.
In September, petitioner completed the first of what would be two psychological evaluations. After interviewing petitioner and administering a full battery of psychological testing, the psychologist concluded that petitioner suffers from multiple psychological disorders that render her incapable of safely caring for A. and of benefiting from reunification services. The psychologist also reported that â€
