E.W. v. Superior Court CA6

Filed 12/5/25 E.W. v. Superior Court CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

E.W., H053632 (Santa Clara County Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. 25JD028370)

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,

Respondent;

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

E.W. (mother), mother of 11-month-old Baby Boy R., seeks extraordinary writ relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.1 Mother requests that Baby Boy R. be returned to her. We construe mother’s petition as a challenge to the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under

Subsequent undesignated references to rules of court are to the California Rules 1

of Court.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny mother’s writ petition.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2025, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (“Department”) placed newborn Baby Boy R. into protective custody due to mother’s untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. Immediately following his birth, hospital staff observed mother attempting to feed the newborn with soup, cow’s milk, and yogurt. Mother also expressed delusional thoughts, believing that “the foster parent is giving her methamphetamines,” and “sex offenders are trying to take her identity.” She then was placed on a psychiatric hold. Four months earlier, mother had tested positive for cocaine while pregnant with Baby Boy R. At the detention hearing, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for mother on a provisional basis at her counsel’s request. Mother was not present at the hearing as she remained under psychiatric care. Mother was subsequently diagnosed with “unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition.” The hospital recommended continued inpatient hospitalization, concluding mother was a danger to herself or others and she continued to present “bizarre thought process, paranoid, and disorganized,” and exhibited “poor insight into symptoms.” Mother was subsequently released from her psychiatric hold. In late January 2025, at the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, mother did not personally appear, although she was informed of the hearing. Mother’s counsel represented that she and the guardian ad litem had no contact with mother and was unable to comment on any issues. The juvenile court admitted the Department’s social worker reports, which included the Department’s investigation and recommended case plan for