L.W. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3

Filed 12/4/13 L.W. v. Super. Ct. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

L.W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN A139776 FRANCISCO COUNTY, (San Francisco County Respondent; Super. Ct. Nos. JD10-3166 & SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES JD10-3166A) AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

L.W. (mother) seeks writ relief from a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services for two of her children and setting a permanent plan selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Mother claims the court erred in taking judicial notice of reports submitted in prior hearings and in finding a substantial risk of detriment to the children’s safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being were they returned to her. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) We shall deny the writ petition. Factual and Procedural Background Mother has five children and an extensive history with child protective services. At issue here are dependency proceedings concerning her youngest children, a son born

1 All further section references are to this code except as noted.

1

in 2000 and daughter born in 2003. In May 2010, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the agency) took custody of the children and filed a petition alleging that mother has substance abuse and mental health problems, that her ability to care for the children deteriorated after the recent death of the children’s father, and that her son’s disruptive behavior at school indicated serious emotional damage. (§ 300, subds. (b), (c).) Mother submitted to the allegations in October 2010. The court declared dependency and ordered reunification services. In April 2012, the court returned the children to mother’s custody with family maintenance services. A few weeks later, the agency resumed custody and filed a supplemental petition. (§ 387.) Mother had been in a physical fight with her live-in boyfriend in which she sustained a neck laceration requiring stitches. The children were present during the fight. The petition alleged that mother has a history of being in relationships characterized by domestic violence, putting the children at substantial risk of harm. The court sustained the allegations following a contested hearing in July 2012. The court placed the children with a relative and ordered reunification services addressed to domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues. A six-month review hearing was held in January 2013. The agency reported that mother was attending domestic violence classes and visited the children but failed to submit to drug testing over the previous six months. Mother also refused to allow the social worker to visit her home to determine its occupants and assess its safety. The agency recommended continued reunification services and the court adopted the recommendation. In August 2013, in advance of a contested 12-month review hearing, the agency reported that mother had not visited her children for over a month and was discontinued from the domestic violence program in July 2013 for “excessive absenteeism” over the previous two months. Mother also continued to refuse a home visit by the social worker. The agency reported: “During the course of this dependency, the Court has provided the mother various opportunities to address the safety issues for herself and the minors, however she failed to take advantage of them. Since the initial removal of the children