In re A.P. CA1/1

Filed 4/30/14 In re A.P. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139885 v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. T.P. et al., Nos. J11-00931 & J11-00932) Defendants and Appellants.

The two children of T.P. (Mother) and A.P. (Father) were detained by the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Agency) on allegations that Mother failed to protect the children from the effects of Father’s domestic violence and substance abuse. Two years later, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for the parents and scheduled a permanency planning hearing. Five days before the permanency planning hearing, Mother filed a petition to modify the order terminating her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388. The juvenile court summarily denied the section 388 petition solely on the grounds that it was untimely. We reverse that denial and vacate the order terminating the parental rights of the parents. 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND The two children of Mother and Father, four-month-old A.P. and his two-year old- sister, Z.P. (the children), as well as their half brother D.G., were the subjects of dependency petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), filed June 13, 2011.2 The petitions alleged Father had a substance abuse problem and had engaged in domestic violence against Mother. He was also alleged to have threatened five-year-old D.G. with a gun. The children were detained and placed in foster care. In October 2011, Mother and Father stipulated to the allegations of an amended petition. In November 2011, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for the parents and continued the children in foster care. In a report filed at the time, the Agency stated that Mother had joined a domestic violence support group and Father had entered a residential substance abuse treatment program. Since the children’s detention, the parents had participated in weekly, one-hour supervised visits. In April 2012, nearly a year after the children’s detention, they were returned to Mother’s custody. Although working two jobs, Mother had been trying “diligently,” if not entirely successfully, to pursue reunification services. Since the November hearing, Father had maintained his sobriety, and he continued to participate in substance abuse programs. His weekly supervised visits with the children were reported to be “appropriate.” The Agency filed a supplemental petition in March 2013, seeking to have the children returned to foster care because Father had resumed his substance abuse in December 2012. Mother claimed ignorance of Father’s conduct, although he had been permitted to stay overnight in her home three to four days per week since October. The juvenile court granted the requested relief. In a dispositional report prepared in May 2013, the Agency stated that Mother’s pride prevented her from providing information about other family members with whom