Lisa R. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1

Filed 10/10/13 Lisa R. v. Super. Ct. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LISA R., Petitioner, A139106 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY (San Francisco City & County AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Super. Ct. Nos. JD12-3113, JD12-3113A, JD12-3113B) Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Lisa R. (Mother) is the mother of five children. Her three youngest children L.R., A.R., and M.R., ages five, four, and two, respectively, are the offspring from her relationship with Anthony R., Sr. (Father). L.R. and her two older half-siblings R.D. and K.D., were removed from their parents’ care in February 2009. L.R. was returned home in May 2010, and the dependencies as to the two older children were dismissed in November 2011, even though the parents did not complete a parenting education

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 “rais[es] factual issues that are determined by the substantial evidence rule”). (§ 8.1(3).)

1

program, family therapy, or couples counseling. After the children were returned, “family members continued to express concerns that the children were being physically [and] emotionally abused and neglected.” On April 17, 2012, a second dependency petition as to Mother’s three youngest children was filed alleging that she had failed to protect them from domestic violence perpetrated by Father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (g), & (j).)2 Mother had reported to the police that Father stole her gun with ammunition and threatened to kill her and her children if she called the police. Mother initially consented to a safety plan in which she agreed, among other things, to obtain a restraining order against Father.3 Rather than comply with the plan, she took the children and joined Father when he was released from jail, and remained with him until he was arrested again a few days later. Her three youngest children were then placed in foster care. At the jurisdiction hearing held on June 6, 2012, the juvenile court sustained the petition as amended. The jurisdiction report filed by the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) concluded that Mother “has physically and emotionally abused [her children] and allowed her partner to abuse [them] for years.” Noting the family had already been provided with services in connection with the 2009 dependency proceeding, the Agency reluctantly recommended services for Mother with respect to the three youngest children, but “only because a permanent plan cannot be made for those children until [Father] receives the six months of services to which he is legally entitled.” While not optimistic about the prognosis for the family, the Agency did acknowledge that Mother had recently engaged in services since the children were detained. Reunification services were ordered for Mother.