Filed 5/25/22 B.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Elizabeth Egan, Judge.

B.P, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Carlie M. Flaugher, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

B.P. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450−8.452)[1] from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))[2] terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for June 20, 2022, as to her now three‑year‑old son S.P. Mother raises various issues, none of which are properly set forth according to the rules.[3] Nevertheless, we will liberally construe her writ petition as challenging notice of the detention hearing, the reasonableness of services provided by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department), including visitation, and the veracity of information provided by the department to the juvenile court. Mother seeks a writ of mandate from this court directing the juvenile court to return S.P. to her custody and terminate its dependency jurisdiction. We deny the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

On May 9, 2021, the department received a crisis referral regarding then two‑year‑old, S.P. It was reported that mother drove with S.P. in the car to the home of Ruben M., her ex-boyfriend and S.P.’s alleged father. Ruben’s stepfather was at the residence and asked mother to leave. She refused and threatened to kill him. She then walked to her car and retrieved a semiautomatic handgun from the trunk of the car where she also had ammunition. She left the scene and was pulled over by law enforcement who located the gun under the passenger seat of the car.

Mother was arrested and charged with making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)), exhibiting a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 417, subd. (a)(2)), child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), carrying a concealed weapon (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(1)) and criminal storage of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 25100, subd. (a)). Law enforcement placed a protective hold on S.P. and the department took him into protective custody and placed him in foster care.

The following day a social worker met with mother at the county jail. Mother explained she went to Ruben’s house to retrieve S.P.’s tablet. The stepfather forced her to leave and she felt threatened but denied threatening anyone with a handgun. She acknowledged having the handgun and ammunition in the trunk of her car. She did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon but the gun was registered in her name. She disclosed a history of methamphetamine and alcohol use but claimed a year of sobriety. She denied any history of mental health problems.

The department filed a dependency petition on S.P.’s behalf, alleging he was a minor child described under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect). A social worker visited mother at the jail and informed her of the detention hearing scheduled for May 12, 2021. Mother, however, appeared fatigued and said she was not feeling well. The correctional officer explained that mother was “ ‘withdrawing’ ” and took down the information for her.

The juvenile court appointed counsel for mother at the detention hearing and continued the hearing so that she could confer with her attorney. The court continued the hearing again on May 17, 2021, so that mother could retain private counsel. Mother appeared with retained counsel on May 24, 2021. The juvenile court ordered S.P. detained, offered mother parenting classes, substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence evaluations and treatment and random drug testing and set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing for July 12, 2021 (combined hearing). The court ordered reasonable supervised visitation for mother to occur a minimum of twice a week and granted the department discretion to offer Ruben services pending the results of paternity testing.

Mother appeared with her attorney at the combined hearing. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over S.P., ordered S.P. removed from her custody and ordered her to complete the services previously offered. The court ordered reasonable supervised visits twice a week for one hour and set the six-month review hearing for January 3, 2022. The court did not order reunification services for Ruben. Mother did not appeal from the court’s findings and orders.

By the six-month review hearing, S.P. was placed with his maternal grandparents who were willing to assume legal guardianship or adopt him. Mother meanwhile was noncompliant. She had not completed any of the assessments and was dropped from her parenting class for missing too many sessions. Her visitation was suspended multiple times for not visiting. She submitted three samples for drug testing and they were positive for methamphetamine. She refused to participate in meetings or telephone conversations to address her noncompliance. She was confrontational with the social worker and sent her inappropriate text messages, accusing her of conspiring to adopt S.P. for financial gain. She offered to pay the social worker to “ ‘make this all go away.’ ” The department recommended the juvenile court terminate her reunification services.

The six-month review hearing was conducted as a contested hearing on March 7, 2022. Mother’s attorney did not present any evidence but told the juvenile court that mother wanted to reunify. He believed she may be suffering from a mental illness that caused her to believe the department was “out to get her.”

The juvenile court found the department provided mother reasonable reunification services but that she made no progress toward resolving the problem requiring S.P.’s removal. The court also found there was not a substantial probability S.P. could be returned to her custody with continued services. The court terminated mother’s reunification services, elevated Ruben to biological father status and set the section 366.26 hearing.

DISCUSSION

Overview of Dependency Proceedings

The goal of dependency proceedings is to protect the child from harmful parental conduct while assisting the parent in resolving the underlying problem if possible. To achieve that goal, the department is required to devise a reunification plan comprised of services that address the parent’s specific needs. Visitation is an essential aspect of the reunification plan.

The juvenile court may exercise its dependency jurisdiction over a child if it finds the child is described under any of the subsections of section 300. It may also remove the child from parental custody at the dispositional hearing if it finds the child would be at risk of substantial harm if returned to parental custody and there are no alternative means other than removal to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) It is at the dispositional hearing that the court orders the parent to participate in the services identified by the department. If the court orders reunification services, it is required to conduct periodic review hearings to decide whether the child can be safely returned to the parent and whether to continue reunification efforts. In deciding whether to continue reunification efforts, the court considers whether the services provided to the parent were reasonable and whether the department made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in accessing and completing them.

Parents have a right to notice of all juvenile dependency proceedings affecting their interest in the custody of their children. (In re Julia U. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 532, 544.) Failure to object to notice in the juvenile court forfeits the claim on appeal. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) Similarly, if the parent disagrees with evidence contained in the department’s reports but does not object, he or she has forfeited the issue on appeal. (In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411.) A parent also forfeits the right to challenge the juvenile court’s order removing a child from his or her custody or its selection of services provided for reunifying if he or she does not appeal from the dispositional orders.

Application

Mother contends notice was defective because the social worker did not explain the process to her or what the outcome would be. We cannot discern from the record what specifically mother and the social worker discussed. However, the evidence supports a conclusion mother was given adequate notice. According to the record, the social worker visited mother in jail the day the dependency petition was filed and informed her there would be a detention hearing on a particular date and time. Mother was incarcerated and unable to attend. However, the juvenile court appointed counsel for mother and continued the detention hearing so that her attorney could discuss the matter with her. At no time did mother’s attorney object to notice at any of the hearings conducted during these dependency proceedings. We further note that the court found at each hearing that proper notice was given and mother did not claim otherwise on appeal.

Regarding reunification services, mother was provided evaluations to assess her for problems related to mental health, domestic violence and substance abuse and parenting classes to teach her proper parenting skills. The court also provided her reasonable visitation to maintain her bond with S.P. If mother disagreed with the specific services offered to her, she could have appealed from the dispositional orders but she did not. Consequently, she cannot now argue that her services as ordered were not reasonable. To the extend mother argues the department’s efforts to provide her those services were not reasonable, the record would not support her. The social worker provided mother referrals for the services and attempted to assist her and monitor her compliance but mother did not attend her appointments and classes and was uncooperative with the social workers. She was also inconsistent in her visitation and dropped from the visitation schedule. Nevertheless, the social worker submitted a new visitation referral for mother and she was added back into the visitation schedule. We conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding mother was provided reasonable reunification services.

Finally, mother challenges the positive test results for amphetamine attached to the jurisdictional/dispositional report filed on July 12, 2021, and the status review report filed on March 7, 2022. She claims they are “completely different” and therefore unreliable. In fact, the information matches. The first report produced by Aversys, the testing facility, records her results from March 1, 2021, to June 24, 2021, and reflects that she tested positive for amphetamine on May 25, 2021, and June 9, 2021. The second report covering the period May 1, 2021, to December 28, 2021, reflects the same positive results for May 25 and June 9, 2021, as well as a positive result for June 28, 2021. The May 25 and June 9 results on both reports match by date and accession number as well as the positive assay levels recorded. Therefore, the reports could be relied upon as evidence of mother’s methamphetamine use. Further, neither mother nor her attorney objected to the information being admitted as part of the department’s reports. Therefore, any objection to the validity of the results has been forfeited.

We conclude mother was provided reasonable reunification services and that she forfeited any claims that she was not provided proper notice and the department’s drug testing results were inaccurate. The only other issue that would bar the juvenile court from terminating reunification services and proceeding to a termination hearing would be whether there was a substantial probability S.P. could be returned to mother’s custody with continued services. Mother does not directly raise this issue and it would fail if she did. In making that determination, the juvenile court may consider any relevant information, including the parent’s participation and progress in his or her services plan. (M.V. v. Superior Court (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 166, 181.) Here, the court found that mother made no progress, which is supported by the record. Consequently, there was no reason to believe that S.P. could be safely returned to her custody by July 9, 2022, the date on which the 12-month review hearing would have to be conducted.[4]

We find no error.

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).

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

[1] Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

[2] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

[3] Rule 8.452(b) requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made and to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. Mother did not technically comply with the rule. Instead, for the most part, she cited legal authority without any discussion or citation to the record. An example is removal, where she simply states there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s order detaining S.P. without setting forth a factual basis. (§ 319, subd. (f)(4).) She discusses at length, however, not being provided adequate notice or reasonable services, including visitation. She also challenges the veracity of results of drug testing provided by the department. Since these appear to be the areas of most concern for her, we will construe her petition as properly raising them.

[4] For a child who was under the age of three years when initially removed, the 12‑month review hearing must be conducted no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) S.P. entered foster care on July 9, 2021.