Jasmine B. v. Superior Court CA4/1 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Jasmine B. v. Superior Court CA4/1
California Court of Appeal May 12, 2014 No. D065414Unpublished
Filed 5/12/14 Jasmine B. v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JASMINE B., D065414
Petitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SJ10558D) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Edlene C. McKenzie, Commissioner. Petition
denied; request for stay denied.
Dependency Legal Group of San Diego and John P. McCurley for Petitioner.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Erica R. Cortez, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest San
Diego County Health and Human Services Agency.
Jasmine B. seeks writ review of the juvenile court's February 10, 2014, order
setting a Welfare and Institutions section 366.26 hearing (all statutory references are to
the Welfare and Institutions Code). Jasmine contends the court erred by denying
rights (id., subd. (b)(11)), in those children's cases. This contention lacks merit.
After Jasmine's services and parental rights were terminated in Anthony's case, she
participated in services in A.B.'s case just a few weeks, failed to reunify and suffered
termination of her parental rights to A.B. and Christopher. Several years later, Jasmine
completed two substance abuse treatment programs but, a few years after that, she was
using drugs again and exhibited mental instability. Jasmine claimed to have participated
in drug and mental health treatment many times, but acknowledged she had been unable
to stay sober, she had not been under the care of a psychiatrist or therapist and she had
5
not taken psychotropic medication because she did not like the side effects. Shortly
before the advent of this case, Jasmine was hospitalized involuntarily after she was found
running in the street and was rambling, agitated and combative. In the context of her
extensive history of mental illness and drug abuse, her treatment efforts cannot be viewed
as anything more than "lackadaisical or half-hearted" and far short of reasonable. (Cheryl
P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 99.) Substantial evidence supports the
court's finding that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) applied.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to deny reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11), because the petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to treat the substance abuse and mental health issues that led to the removal of her older children.
Issues
Did the juvenile court apply the correct clear and convincing evidence standard of proof?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding that the petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of her older children?
Disposition. denied
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In the context of her extensive history of mental illness and drug abuse, her treatment efforts cannot be viewed as anything more than "lackadaisical or half-hearted" and far short of reasonable.”
“Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) applied.”