T.People v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 11/27/13 T.P. v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

T.P., F068050

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. Nos. 516423, 516424)

v. OPINION THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY,

Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest. THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. T.P., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Oakley, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Madera County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

-ooOoo- T.P. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))1 terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her six-and four-year-old sons, Nathan and Sebastian, respectively. Mother seeks a continuation of reunification services and return of the children to her custody. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In February 2012, Nathan and Sebastian’s maternal grandmother, Karen, petitioned the San Joaquin County juvenile court for guardianship over then four-year-old Nathan and two-year-old Sebastian. Mother had left the children in Karen’s care and Karen claimed mother had been reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) for child abuse and was depressed and suicidal. Karen also stated that the children’s fathers were in Mexico. The juvenile court ordered the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (SJ agency) to investigate Karen’s circumstances and provide an assessment. The SJ agency reported that Karen had an extensive CPS history that resulted in the adoption of two of her children. In addition, Karen had a criminal history that included a conviction for child cruelty. The SJ agency recommended against guardianship and filed a dependency petition on the children’s behalf. The juvenile court adjudged the children dependents under section 300 and, in September 2012, transferred the case to Stanislaus County, mother’s county of residence. The Stanislaus County juvenile court (juvenile court) accepted the case and set the dispositional hearing for November 2012. The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) placed the children together in foster care.