Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate from order of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP-018474, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21. Petition denied.
Law Office of J. Michael Hughes and Lawrence A. Aufill for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Julie J. Agin, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Parties in Interest.
Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Karen Sawyer Cianfrani for Minor.
OPINION
Aronson, J.
Elizabeth B. (mother) seeks extraordinary relief from a juvenile court order setting a hearing to select a permanent plan for her infant son K. under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 (.26 hearing; all further statutory references are to this code). Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order denying her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11), where the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent has failed to reunify with a sibling or half sibling of the child, or parental rights over that sibling were terminated, and the parent failed to make a reasonable effort to correct the problems that led to the removal of the sibling from the parent’s custody. In addition, mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence under section 361.5, subdivision (c), that reunification services were not in her child’s best interest. Our review discloses no error, and we deny the petition.
I
Factual and Procedural Background
In May 2009, mother gave birth to K. at University of California Irvine Medical Center. Mother displayed symptoms of mental illness including agitation, “pressured speech,” and a “flight of ideas” at the time of K.’s birth. A physician involuntarily hospitalized mother as a danger to herself (§ 5150) and the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) placed a hospital hold on K. The identity of K.’s father was unknown. Mother later stated father was “some [50ish] bald guy” she met in Las Vegas named Antonio R., who was homeless.
Mother had a history of bipolar disorder and a criminal history including drug use, prostitution and domestic violence. In 2003, she suffered a conviction for stabbing a boyfriend in the back with a kitchen knife. She consistently failed to seek treatment for her mental illness, and when eventually treated, she often chose not to take her prescribed psychotropic medications.
The juvenile court previously terminated mother’s parental rights to two other children, Jocelyn B. and Micah B., after reunification efforts failed. Jocelyn was born in August 2003 with Darvocet in her system. Mother used Darvocet while pregnant and had a history of abusing that drug as well as methamphetamine and heroin. She also had an ongoing problem with violent behavior and participated in a court-ordered domestic violence program before Jocelyn’s birth. During the reunification period, her participation in mental health treatment was erratic and she did not take her prescribed medications. She stopped drug testing and failed to enroll in a drug treatment program, complete a parenting class, or find employment and a place to live. She repeatedly violated visitation rules and visits had to be moved to SSA’s offices. In 2005, mother failed to reunify with Jocelyn and the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights.
We grant SSA’s unopposed request to judicially notice our prior opinions. (In re Jocelyn B. (Oct. 14, 2005, G035146) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Micah B. (Oct. 26, 2007, G038546) [nonpub. opn.].) (See generally Kilroy v. State (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140 [discussing limited judicial notice of appellate court opinions].)
Mother gave birth to Micah in October 2006. SSA detained Micah based on mother’s “emotional instability including but not limited to hallucinations, a [labile] mood, and aggressive behavior.” The identity of Micah’s father was unknown as mother was engaging in prostitution at the time of conception. Mother had discontinued use of psychotropic medication against her psychiatrist’s advice. Mother did not reunify with Micah and the juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights in 2007.
In 2005, mother gave birth to Sebastian B. in the State of Washington. Mother claimed she voluntarily relinquished him for adoption. SSA asserted he had been declared a dependent child.
At K.’s detention hearing on May 6, 2009, the juvenile court ordered SSA to provide services to reunify K. and mother. The court authorized monitored visitation at least twice a week, and required mother to submit to drug and alcohol testing and wear a drug-indicator patch.
During a May 13 visit with K., mother placed her son’s car seat on a chair in an unstable position, requiring the social worker to intervene. Mother failed to show up for an appointment with the social worker on the morning of May 18. At the rescheduled appointment on May 21 to discuss the allegations of the petition, mother changed subjects abruptly, requiring the social worker to refocus her attention to the specific allegation under discussion. Mother’s case manager at Casa Teresa, a home for pregnant homeless women, believed mother could not care for a child by herself. Although mother expressed willingness to take her medications, she admitted she had not taken any medication for 10 months because she was looking for a psychiatrist. The foster mother reported mother was affectionate but “a bit abrupt and jerky” with K. and she had to demonstrate how to hold the baby safely. On one occasion, mother told the caretaker that K.’s father wanted to visit him “with all his ‘friends who are gang members.’”
In the report for the jurisdiction hearing, the social worker recommended the court deny reunification services for mother and set a section 366.26 hearing. Mother’s cousin in Washington, who had adopted one of mother’s children, expressed willingness to adopt K. In June 2009, mother pleaded no contest to SSA’s amended dependency petition (§ 300, subds. (b) [failure to protect], (g) [no provision for support] & (j) [sibling abuse]).
As of June 15, 2009, mother had enrolled in the county’s perinatal drug treatment program and had been attending group sessions, although she had missed two individual counseling sessions. Her drug tests were negative. Mother reported to an intake worker she occasionally experienced visual hallucinations.
In a report dated July 3, the social worker advised mother had failed to return the social worker’s phone calls. K.’s foster parent reported she had to admonish mother during visits because mother “is not gentle when holding the child.” She explained mother’s movements while holding the child were “‘jumpy’” and she failed to support the child’s head. Because mother showed no improvement in caring for the baby, the foster mother concluded mother could not safely care for the child alone. Mother’s perinatal counselor reported mother had missed three group sessions and several individual sessions. She was “very intrusive” in group sessions, and would often stray “off the subject.” Mother reported father was “back in the picture,” a detail she had not disclosed to the social worker. Mother’s mental health coordinator at the county health care agency stated mother was under the care of a physician who had prescribed Seroquel, but mother had only visited the office twice.
At the disposition hearing on July 6, 2009, the social worker testified that while mother was doing the best that she could, her efforts did not reasonably address the problems that led to the removal of K.’s siblings, and mother would not benefit from additional reunification services. She cited mother’s missed counseling sessions and her prior failure to take prescribed medications. The social worker noted similar services provided to mother when she attempted to reunify with her other children did not ameliorate her problems. The social worker observed no changes in mother’s condition since the case had begun. She concluded it was not in K.’s best interest for mother to receive reunification services because he deserved permanency, and given mother’s mental health issues and sporadic drug abuse, mother would not benefit from services to assist her in caring for the child.
Mother testified about parenting and nutrition classes she had attended at Casa Teresa. She had moved into Brynmar House, a sober living home, after leaving Casa Teresa. Brynmar did not permit children, but she was looking for a new residence. She received SSI and SSDI payments and hoped to receive career training so she could provide for her child. She had not yet attended mandatory daily Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings because of her perinatal requirements and visits with K. She was taking Seroquel, which addressed hyperactivity, depression, and anxiety. She claimed the drug calmed her down “to the point where I don’t just jump the stone, whatever you call it,... I’m more relaxed. And it helps me to have a little bit more intelligent thought instead of flying off the handle....” She testified K. was the “love of [her] life.”
Mother stated she had been born with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and she and her mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Currently 31 years old, mother noted she received her first prescribed psychotropic medication at age 16 or 17. She admitted she had not taken the medication consistently because she was having children and living in places where she did not have a doctor. She stopped taking medication each time after the court terminated her parental rights to her other children. She admitted she told a doctor she did not want to take Seroquel because it made her sleepy. Asked if she intended to continue taking the medication, she stated she was “thinking about it” and would “probably... be continuing to use it.” She then stated, “Most definitely I will.” She claimed to have been sober for almost three years.
The juvenile court found reunification services need not be offered and mother had failed to demonstrate it would be in K.’s best interest to order reunification services. The court scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for November 3, 2009.
II
Discussion
Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services, arguing the record compels any reasonable factfinder to conclude she has made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of K.’s siblings. She argues the record demonstrates she has remained sober and therefore made reasonable efforts to overcome substance abuse, which was a factor in the earlier dependencies.
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), provides, “Reunification services need not be provided to a parent... when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence... [¶]... [¶] That the court ordered termination of reunification services for any siblings or half siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to Section 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that parent or guardian.” (See also § 361.5, subd. (b)(11) [parental rights of a parent over sibling or half sibling permanently severed].)
Under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11), the court may deny reunification services in recidivism situations where the parent has failed to reunify with a sibling of the child and it is shown the parent has not diligently worked to correct the underlying problems. (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227.) “‘Once it is determined one of the situations outlined in [section 361.5,] subdivision (b) applies, the general rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of governmental resources. [Citation.]’” (Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 744.) We review the juvenile court’s determination to deny reunification services for substantial evidence, examining the record in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions. (In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 480.) So long as reasonable inferences from the evidence support the conclusions of the trier of fact, we may not substitute our deductions for those reached below. (Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 600.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s conclusion mother had not made a meaningful effort to treat her long-standing mental illness, which undermined her ability to safely parent. The record clearly showed mother did not consistently take her psychotropic medication. Although she asserts it was reasonable to stop taking her psychotropic medications during her pregnancy with K., the record shows she had been off medication for almost two years before K.’s birth and had stopped taking medications soon after she lost parental rights to her other children. Accordingly, the court could reasonably conclude she took her medication only when custody of her children was at stake and SSA was not supervising her. Her equivocal testimony concerning medication at the disposition hearing did not inspire confidence that, given the choice, she would continue taking medication absent SSA supervision.
We also cannot overlook evidence mother’s parenting skills had not improved during the pendency of the current case despite the provision for services at the detention hearing. The social worker testified that while mother was doing the best she could, there had been no positive change since the case had begun. Mother’s Casa Teresa case manager and the foster mother believed mother would not be able to safely parent K. Mother also missed counseling sessions and NA meetings and admitted she was overwhelmed and too disorganized to comply with all components of the case plan.
The record shows mother’s participation in services, but no progress in dealing with the problems that led her to lose custody of her other children. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude it was not in K.’s best interest to defer a permanency plan (§ 361.5, subd. (c) [court shall not order reunification for a parent or guardian described in paragraphs (b)(10) or (11) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child]) because under these circumstances there was no likelihood reunification services would succeed. Substantial evidence supports the dispositional findings by clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to make reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to removal of her children. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (11).)
III
Disposition
The petition for writ of mandate is denied on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(C).) The request for a stay of the November 3, 2009, section 366.26 hearing is denied.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.