In re C.S. CA1/2

Filed 10/28/13 In re C.S. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re C.S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ROSE W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A139384 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Petitioner; Super. Ct. No. J13-00509) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICE BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.

By this petition for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) petitioner Rose W., the mother of C.S., seeks to vacate the order of respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County setting a hearing to terminate her parental rights in accordance with Welfare and Institutions code section 366.26. Petitioner‟s sole contention is that the court‟s determination that reunification services would not be provided to her is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude this contention is without merit, and deny the petition on its merits. BACKGROUND The record, viewed in conformity with In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, shows the following:

1

C.S. was the subject of a petition filed by Real Party in Interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) in which petitioner was alleged to have “a serious and chronic substance abuse problem that impairs her ability to adequately care for and supervise the child,” which problem had already led to the dependency of another child. (The same allegations were made against the presumed father, who is not a party to this proceeding.) C.S. was less than a year old when she was removed from petitioner‟s custody and detained. She was placed in foster care with her siblings, who had already been adjudged dependent children. Two weeks later, at the jurisdictional hearing conducted on May 13, 2013, petitioner submitted on the petition. After taking judicial notice of the files of C.S.‟s siblings, the court sustained all allegations of the petition. The dispositional hearing was held on July 18 and 23, 2013, simultaneously with the 18-month review of the siblings‟ dependencies. The court received in evidence the disposition report prepared by the Bureau‟s caseworker. In that report, the caseworker advised the court that C.S.‟s parents “began using substances at an early age so consequently they have a long history of methamphetamine and other substance abuse, both individually and together and have engaged in domestic violence . . . when they were using.” In April (when C.S. was detained), the parents “relapsed after eighteen months of [reunification] services” and tested positive for methamphetamine use. The caseworker described petitioner as “a loving mother” who has “insight” into her substance abuse problem However, petitioner had already completed three residential treatment programs, was “unable to maintain sobriety,” and had “not sufficiently addressed [her] serious and chronic substance abuse that places [her] children at risk.” Although the parents “have been provided services for this problem since December 29, 2011, they have failed to reunify with [C.S.‟s] siblings and continue to use illicit drugs.” For this reason, the caseworker recommended that “Family Reunification Services be denied to the parents . . . pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 361.5(b)(10) so that a permanent plan can be made for the child[ren].”