A.A. v. Superior Court CA1/3

Filed 9/27/13 A.A. v. Superior Court CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

A. M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A139228 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. J13-00084, J13-00085) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

A.M. (Mother), mother of J.M., born in January 2013, and F.F, born in December 2010, petitions under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to vacate an order setting a selection and implementation hearing for the minors pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 F.F. and J.M. are Mother‟s sixth and seventh children. The previous five were removed from her custody, and she failed to reunify with them. Reunification services to Mother were terminated for the first two children in 2004, and for the next three in 2008. Mother was denied reunification services for J.M. and F.F. pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), which provides that services may be withheld if they have previously been terminated for siblings, and the parent “has not subsequently made a

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to removal” of the siblings. Mother contends that the court erred in finding that she had made no such effort, but we conclude the finding was supported by substantial evidence. We therefore uphold the order setting the section 366.26 hearing. I. BACKGROUND Mother has had a drug problem for at least two decades. She completed inpatient substance abuse programs in 2002, 2004, and 2010, but she admitted smoking methamphetamine while pregnant with J.M. and tested positive for methamphetamine when J.M. was born in January 2013. Dependency petitions were filed for J.M. and F.F. on January 22, 2013, alleging Mother‟s failure to protect based on her serious and chronic substance abuse problem (§ 300, subd. (b)), and her failure to reunify with the minors‟ siblings (§ 300, subd. (j)). The petitions were sustained, and J.M. and F.F. were adjudged dependent children. In May, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) prepared a dispositional report stating that J.M. and F.F. were placed together in a foster home. The foster mother likened two-year-old F.F.‟s behavior to that of a “wild fox, always on the move.” F.F. “presented as a child who had never been disciplined and was used to fending for herself.” The foster mother stated that “when [F.F.] gets upset, she will „attack,‟ kicks, spits, bites, etc. . . . [F.F.] continues to have „nightmares,‟ screaming in her sleep.” F.F. followed the foster mother everywhere, and cried when she lost sight of her. F.F. also had a “demonstrated fear of men.” The Bureau reported that Mother successfully completed a three-month residential drug treatment program at The Rectory on April 15. The Rectory recommended that Mother complete a six-month outpatient treatment program at the Aurora Project, and obtain at least one or two years of trauma therapy to address “abuse issues.” She also “need[ed] to continue with her sponsor and attend[] meeting[s] 3-5 times per week.” Mother got on the waiting list for the Aurora Project in mid-April and entered Rosewood House, a sober living environment that provides transitional housing for women. Mother had eight negative drug tests, with one “No Show,” from February 27 to April 23. She