L.T. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 8/9/13 L.T. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

L.T., Petitioner, v. A138652 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. 3782-DEP, 3783-DEP, Respondent; 3784-DEP) SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT et al., Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The three children of appellant L.T. (Mother), M.M., age 23 months, and Ru.M. and Ri.M., twins one month old (minors), were the subject of a November 2011 dependency petition. The petition alleged neglect, failure to protect, and failure to support due to serious domestic violence between Mother and her husband, the minors‟ presumed father (Father), and substance abuse by Mother and Father. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 300, subds. (b) & (g).) At the time of filing, both parents were incarcerated.

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 (a “memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion” is appropriate when an appeal “raise[s] no substantial issues of law or fact”). 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The minors were found to be dependents of the court in December 2011. Reunification services were denied to Father as a result of his history of chronic substance abuse. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).) At the time of the six-month review in June 2012, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Agency) recommended terminating reunification services to Mother as a result of her continued contact with Father, erratic compliance with a substance abuse program, and inability to accept responsibility for her conduct. After a contested six-month review hearing in September 2012, the juvenile court granted Mother an additional six months of services. The Agency again recommended termination of Mother‟s reunification services at the time of the 12-month hearing in December. After a series of evidentiary hearings in February, March, and April 2013, the court terminated her services and scheduled a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26, explaining its decision in a written order. On June 24, 2013, Mother filed in this court a petition for extraordinary writ seeking an order directing the juvenile court to vacate its order and restore reunification services. In her petition, Mother contends the juvenile court‟s conduct of the proceedings violated her right to procedural due process and its findings of detriment and reasonable services were not supported by substantial evidence. We entered an order to show cause and oral argument notice, directing a response by July 10. The factual circumstances underlying Mother‟s claims of error are known to the parties and are thoroughly recounted in the Agency‟s “Opposition and Response to Mother‟s Petition for Extraordinary Writ and Objection to Request for Stay.” A. Due Process Mother cites no legal authority for her claim that her due process rights were violated in the course of the dependency proceeding. The foundations for her argument are the claims that (1) only one report was prepared by the Agency in connection with the contested 12-month hearing, which stretched over several months, and information was disclosed during testimony that was not contained in an Agency report; (2) a social worker who testified failed to provide the court with “ „exculpatory‟ or „good‟ evidence”; and (3) the trial court relied in its statement of decision on an expert‟s answer to a