Opinion
E070400
07-13-2018
C.T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Karl Fuller for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1400070) OPINION ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Judith C. Clark, Judge. Petition denied. Karl Fuller for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, and Prabhath D. Shettigar, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner C.T. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, challenging the trial court's order denying reunification services as to her child, K.T. (the child), and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The sole issue on appeal pertains to notice. Mother requests a stay of the section 366.26 hearing, pending the granting or denial of this writ petition. We deny both the request for a stay and the writ petition.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2018, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed an amended section 300 petition on behalf of the child, who was six months old at the time. The petition alleged that she came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). It specifically alleged that mother suffered from unresolved mental health issues, engaged in acts of domestic violence, lacked a stable living environment, and had a substance abuse history. The petition also alleged that she had a case history with Child Protective Services as to the child's half-siblings, she failed to reunify with them, and they were subsequently adopted. The whereabouts of the child's father (father) were unknown.
Father is not a party to this writ.
The social worker filed a detention report, noting that mother had two other children who were removed from her care, and she failed to reunify with them. The prior dependency cases stated that mother had untreated mental health issues, ongoing substance abuse problems, and a history of assaulting others with a deadly weapon. She was offered referrals to resources, but she refused services and was threatening to the social worker.
The court held a detention hearing on January 22, 2018, and mother was present with counsel. The court detained the child in foster care. At that hearing, mother filed a Judicial Council Forms, form JV-140, reporting her mailing address to be 32936 on a street in Lake Elsinore, California (the street in Lake Elsinore or the same street). The court set a jurisdiction hearing for February 21, 2018, and ordered mother to appear without further notice.
The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on February 15, 2018, recommending that reunification services be denied under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(13). The social worker reported that mother failed to benefit from substance abuse treatment during past dependency cases, and family reunification services were terminated with regard to the child's half-siblings, who were subsequently adopted on July 8, 2016.
Mother did not appear at the jurisdiction hearing on February 21, 2018, but was represented by counsel. The court found good notice as to mother and then dispensed with further statutory notice to her. The court continued the hearing to March 22, 2018, at the request of father's counsel.
On March 9, 2018, DPSS filed a noticing documentation, which reflected that it served notice of the March 22, 2018 hearing on mother at the incorrect address of 32036 on the street in Lake Elsinore. However, DPSS attached a copy of the U.S. Postal Certified Mail receipt showing the notice was sent to the correct address of 32936 on the same street.
Mother did not appear at the continued jurisdiction hearing on March 22, 2018, but was represented by counsel. At the request of mother's counsel, the court set a contested jurisdiction hearing for April 18, 2018.
On April 4, 2018, DPSS filed a noticing documentation, which reflected that it served notice of the contested April 18, 2018 hearing on mother at the incorrect address of 32036 on the street in Lake Elsinore. DPSS did not attach a U.S. Postal Certified Mail receipt this time.
Mother did not appear at the contested hearing on April 18, 2018, but she was represented by counsel. County counsel stated that its recommendation was for the court to find the petition true, declare the child a dependent, and deny mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11), rather than (b)(13). County counsel informed the court that DPSS did send out notice of the hearing to mother at her JV-140 address. The court asked mother's counsel if he wanted to be heard, and he said he had no objection to DPSS's evidence and no affirmative evidence. He asked, "Does the court find good notice?" The court replied that it did find good notice to mother. It then sustained the petition, declared the child a dependent, found that there would be a substantial danger to the physical health and safety or well-being of the child if returned home (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(1)), and that mother was a person described by section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11). The court denied her reunification services and found they would not be in the child's best interest. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for August 16, 2018
DPSS filed a second amended petition on March 22, 2018, which was substantially the same as the original petition. The court sustained the second amended petition. --------
ANALYSIS
The Court Properly Denied Mother Reunification Services
Mother requests this court to reverse the order denying her reunification services because the trial court improperly dispensed with further statutory notice at the initial jurisdiction/disposition hearing, and because DPSS sent notice for the contested jurisdiction hearing to the wrong address. While it is unclear why the court dispensed with statutory notice, we note that DPSS continued to send notice to mother. Furthermore, mother waived any objection regarding notice. We conclude that the court properly denied reunification services, and mother has given us no reason to reverse the court's order.
Section 291, subdivision (e)(2), provides that "[i]f the child is detained and the persons required to be noticed are present at the initial petition hearing, they shall be noticed by personal service, by first-class mail, or by electronic service . . . .." Mother appeared at the initial hearing, and the court ordered her to appear at the jurisdiction hearing on February 21, 2018. Mother failed to appear at that hearing. However, she was represented by counsel. The court found good notice as to mother and then dispensed with further statutory notice to her. Nonetheless, DPSS continued to notice mother by certified mail. Mother points out that the notices were mailed to the wrong address. However, the record does not necessarily establish that. DPSS filed a noticing documentation, which reflected that it served notice of the March 22, 2018 hearing on mother at the incorrect address of 32036 on the street in Lake Elsinore. However, the U.S. Postal Certified Mail receipt showing the notice was sent to the correct address of 32936 on the same street.
Mother specifically complains that DPSS sent notice for the April 18, 2018 contested hearing to the wrong address. DPSS filed a noticing documentation, which reflected that it served notice of that hearing on mother at the address of 32036 on the street in Lake Elsinore again. Mother did not appear at such hearing. However, we note that she was represented by counsel, and thus appeared through counsel. (See In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 689.) Mother's counsel asked if the court was going to find good notice, and the court confirmed its finding of good notice. Counsel did not object or raise any issue about notice being mailed to the wrong address. Counsel's failure to raise the alleged defect constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal. (In re Z.S. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 754, 771.)
In any event, the court properly denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11), which provide that reunification services need not be provided to a parent when the court finds clear and convincing evidence that the court ordered termination of services for any half-siblings because the parent failed to reunify with them, the parental rights over any half-siblings have been permanently severed, and the parent has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal. "[T]he Legislature, by enacting section 361.5, subdivision (b), has discerned '. . . it may be fruitless to provide reunification services under certain circumstances.' " (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 467.) Here, it is undisputed that mother had prior dependency cases in which the child's half-siblings were removed, she failed to reunify with them, and her parental rights were terminated. Significantly, the evidence shows that mother had untreated mental health issues, ongoing substance abuse problems, and a history of assaulting others with a deadly weapon. When she was previously offered referrals, she refused services. The evidence certainly shows that it may be fruitless to provide mother reunification services here. (See Ibid.)
In sum, DPSS sent mother notice, mother was represented by counsel at the hearings, and her counsel waived any issue regarding notice at the contested jurisdiction hearing on April 18, 2018. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the court properly denied reunification services. Thus, mother has given us no reason to reverse the court's order.
DISPOSITION
The writ petition is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. SLOUGH
J.