S.M. v. Super. Ct. CA1/5

Filed 12/17/13 S.M. v. Super. Ct. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

S.M., Petitioner, v. A139995 SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA (Contra Costa County COSTA COUNTY, Super. Ct. Nos. J1200937, J1200938, Respondent; J1200939)

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

S.M. (Mother) seeks writ review of an order setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,1 a hearing at which her parental rights to three of her children, T.M., P.L., and R.M. (Minors) may be terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court should have accepted the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Bureau of Children and Family Services (the Bureau) that she be

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

given additional reunification services. She also contends the juvenile court erred in failing to exercise its discretion to order additional reunification services for her. We find no merit in either of Mother’s contentions and accordingly deny her petition for extraordinary relief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother has four children, three of whom are at issue in this writ proceeding.2 On June 15, 2012, the Bureau filed petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) with regard to Minors. As relevant here, the petitions alleged Mother had a history of substance abuse that placed the children at risk of harm. On June 18, 2012, the juvenile court ordered Minors detained, and it later sustained the petitions’ section 300, subdivision (b) allegation. In 2012, Mother received four referrals for drug testing services, two referrals for drug treatment services, three referrals for parent education and counseling, as well as a referral for legal counseling and placement services for Minors. After the March 18, 2013 disposition hearing, Minors were ordered placed out of home, and the juvenile court ordered that Mother have one hour of supervised visitation twice per month. Mother’s case plan required her to stay sober and show her ability to live free from alcohol dependency, and it required her to test for drugs and engage in mental health counseling, parenting education, and substance abuse services. The disposition order also set a six-month review hearing.3 The Bureau filed a six and twelve month status review report in connection with the review hearing. The report explained the Bureau had very limited information about Mother because of the latter’s reluctance to discuss her situation and activities with the social worker. The social worker believed Mother was residing in Antioch, receiving disability income, and was unemployed. The Bureau reported that Mother was not drug testing with the company the Bureau used for such tests. Although Mother claimed she