In re P.L.
The child was born in March 2005. Although the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears the child may have been born after the father was incarcerated on drug charges. The mother has a 2005 felony conviction for drug sales and a 2005 misdemeanor conviction for petty theft. The mother and child came to the attention of the Department of Human Services (the Department) in October 2005, after the mother told paramedics she was hearing voices and was referred for a psychiatric evaluation. It seems that after the mother stated she no longer was hearing voices, she was allowed to go home, and she continued to care for the child until June 2006, when she initiated contact with the Department, seeking aid for herself and the child. On June 28, 2006, the mother, her family members and the social worker reached an informal agreement that the mothers uncle and his girlfriend would care for the child while the mother got back on her medications. Approximately two weeks later, the mother disappeared with the child. She was referred to a mental health clinic on July 14, 2006, where she was observed to be actively psychotic. On July 20, 2007, the Departments team met with the mother, the mothers uncle and his girlfriend, and it was then agreed the mother could not stay in her uncles home and would not be left alone with the child until a psychiatrist had found her to be capable of caring for the child.
On July 24, 2006, the Department filed a petition alleging that the child, then 15 months old, was a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support.)[1] On July 26, 2006, the court ordered the detention of the child, placing her with the mothers uncle. The father was in jail awaiting trial for possession of cocaine, but stated an interest in raising the child. The child had adjusted well to living with the mothers uncle and his girlfriend, who stated a willingness to adopt or to be legal guardians if the parents were unable to reunify with the child. The matter was continued to September 20, 2006, to November 3, 2006, to November 17, 2006, to December 8, 2006 and finally to December 21, 2006.
In the meantime, in October 2006, the mother was arrested for petty theft with a prior. As of December 2006, both the mother and father were in jail and the mother continued to exhibit mental issues suggestive of schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia. By this time, the Department also had learned a little about the fathers criminal history, reporting that at the age of 17, the father had killed a man in connection with a drug deal. The father served time for that offense until late 1998. The father was about to be sentenced on his current case, and it was believed he would be released in March or April 2007. The Department believed it was unlikely either parent would be able to reunify with the child, noting the father had continued to engage in a drug-related lifestyle.
At the December jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, both parents appeared. They agreed to waive their rights to a contested hearing, and admitted to the allegations of an amended petition. The court set the matter over to March 21, 2007, for the six-month review hearing, over the fathers objection that the March date was only three months away. The court adopted the reunification requirements set forth in the disposition report, which included that the father successfully complete a parenting education program, obtain suitable housing, cooperate with the child welfare worker in developing a case plan, sign necessary releases, complete a drug and alcohol assessment, participate in drug testing on a regular, consistent basis, participate in mental health services and provide adequate supervision for the child. The Department explained that when the father was released, he would need to contact the Department so he could be assessed for visitation. The father appeals. court affirm.
Comments on In re P.L.