In re K.M. CA5

Filed 7/31/13 In re K.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re K.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F065954 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 10CEJ300186) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION S.M.,

Defendant and Respondent;

K.M.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge. Beth A. Melvin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Kevin B. Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

K.M., a juvenile court dependent, appeals from the October 17, 2012 juvenile court orders which, inter alia, took dependency jurisdiction over her under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), removed her from the custody of her mother, S.M., and ordered reunification services for mother. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).)1 In ordering services for mother, the juvenile court rejected the recommendation of the Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department) that mother be denied services pursuant to (1) section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), as the Department failed to satisfy its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that mother had not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of K.M.’s siblings in a prior dependency case, and (2) section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), as it found the Department failed to satisfy its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that mother had a history of extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs and, even if that burden was satisfied, the juvenile court found the provision of services to mother was in K.M.’s best interest. In briefing filed with this court, K.M. challenges only the order of reunification services, arguing the juvenile court erred as a matter of law when it declined to find the reunification bypass provision of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) applicable to mother and abused its discretion when it found it was in K.M.’s best interest to order services. K.M. asks us to reverse the order for reunification services and remand the matter to the juvenile court with instructions that it enter an order terminating mother’s services. On May 22, 2013, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court held a six-month review hearing with respect to K.M. At that hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for September 9, 2013. By a June 26, 2013 letter, this court invited the parties to file supplemental briefing on (1) the propriety of taking judicial notice of the juvenile court’s May 22, 2013 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.