R.G. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 4/7/14 R.G. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

R.G., Petitioner, F068746 v. (Super. Ct. Nos. JP000660 & JP000860) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. R.G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and Sheri L. Damon, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Franson, J.

R.G. (mother) has two sons, 20-month-old K.B. and 8-month-old A.B., the subjects of this writ petition. At a contested hearing, the juvenile court denied mother’s petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 to return K.B. to her custody, denied her reunification services as to A.B. and set a section 366.26 hearing as to both children. Mother, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ directing the juvenile court to return the children to her custody and terminate its dependency jurisdiction or provide her reunification services. She believes the juvenile court’s orders are based on her failure to participate in psychotherapy but contends she was ineligible for it at that time. She informs this court she is participating in psychotherapy and attached supporting documentation to her petition. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In August 2012, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) took then two-month-old K.B. into protective custody because mother’s home was dirty, she had untreated depression and was cutting herself and she left K.B. alone in the home on multiple occasions. In March 2013, following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2) after two psychologists concluded she had a mental disorder that prevented her from benefitting from reunification services. Both psychologists diagnosed her as having a borderline personality disorder. One of the psychologists diagnosed mother with major depression and characterized her mental disorder as “moderate to severe.” The psychologist reported that mother engaged in risky behavior that endangered K.B. such as walking