Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Juvenile Court Referee, Super. Ct. No. JJV050036B, C, D, E-98.
January G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Phillip Jarrett Cline, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing at to her four children, C.K., B.G., V.G. and J.N. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a long history of child welfare intervention dating back to 1998 when then three-year-old C.K., one-year-old B.G. and 10-month-old V.G. were removed from petitioner’s custody amid allegations petitioner and C.K.’s stepfather, B., engaged in forced oral copulation with C.K. A dependency petition was filed but dismissed after B. left the state and the court found insufficient evidence to support the allegation of sexual abuse. Nevertheless, petitioner accepted voluntary maintenance and was ordered to participate in mental health services to address her suicidal ideation and the sexual abuse allegations. In 2000, petitioner gave birth to her fourth child, J.N.
Over the ensuing years, petitioner remained mentally unstable and the social services agency continued to receive reports she exposed her children to sexual abuse and domestic violence. In 2004, J.N.’s father, S.N., sexually molested C.K. Despite that, petitioner allowed S.N. access to the children. In addition, petitioner subjected the children to her then boyfriend, T.H., who assaulted petitioner and threatened to kill her and the children. In November 2005, petitioner was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital where she tested positive for methamphetamine. All the while, the family situation was monitored through voluntary services which required petitioner to receive mental health and substance abuse treatment.
Finally, in January 2006, after years of voluntary maintenance failed, the social services agency took all four children into protective custody and the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction. In April 2006, the court ordered petitioner to participate in a plan of reunification which required her to complete programs in parenting and domestic violence, participate in mental health and substance abuse treatment and submit to random drug testing. The children were placed in foster care.
In April, petitioner completed a mental health examination. The examiner recommended she complete either intensive outpatient or residential substance abuse treatment and address her abuse issues before undergoing treatment for an apparent depressive disorder. Petitioner was admitted to an inpatient substance abuse treatment program in July but was discharged within two weeks for medical reasons. In addition, she had not completed any of her case plan requirements or submitted to random drug testing. At that time, the agency considered her prognosis for reunification poor but recommended the court continue services to the 12-month review hearing.
In September, the juvenile court continued services as recommended and set the 12-month review hearing for March 2007. In February, petitioner admitted herself to a 12-month dual-diagnosis substance abuse treatment program consisting of six months of residential treatment and six months of aftercare. According to the agency, petitioner was actively participating in the classes and groups, drug testing and taking her medication. She told the social worker she believed residential treatment would help her complete her case plan. However, petitioner also told the social worker that she was considering discontinuing residential treatment and was adamant that she was financially unable to care for the children. Nevertheless, the social worker believed petitioner could possibly complete her case plan within another six months. Consequently, the agency recommended the court continue services to the 18-month review hearing. By this time, after multiple placements, C.K. and J.N. were settled in the home of their maternal grandmother and B.G. and V.G. were settled in the home of their paternal grandmother.
Minors’ counsel requested a contested 12-month review hearing on the agency’s recommendation to continue services and a contested hearing was conducted in March 2007. Petitioner appeared represented by counsel who offered no evidence. Minors’ counsel argued that petitioner’s participation in services began late in the reunification period and that she would not complete the residential portion of her treatment much less the aftercare portion before the 18-month limitation on services expired in July 2007.
Following argument, the court found the return of the children to petitioner’s custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection and well-being. The court also found petitioner was provided reasonable services and there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to petitioner’s custody by the 18-month review hearing. Consequently, the court terminated petitioner’s services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider permanent plans of legal guardianship for C.K. and J.N. and adoption for B.G. and V.G. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues she fully complied with her reunification services and therefore the court erred in not returning the children to her custody. We disagree. As long as a parent poses a substantial risk of detriment to a child’s safety, protection or well-being, the juvenile court is authorized to withhold parental custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) In this case, petitioner’s long history of abuse and neglect, coupled with her emotional instability and unresolved substance abuse supported the court’s finding the children could not be safely returned to her care.
Further, in light of the reasonable services provided and the improbability the children could be returned to petitioner’s custody by the 18-month review hearing, the court had no choice but to terminate reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Based on the foregoing, we find no error on this record and will deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.