D.C. v. Super. Ct. CA1/4

Filed 7/10/14 D.C. v. Super. Ct. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

D.C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY A141674 AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (San Francisco County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. JD13-3035) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

D.C., the mother of M.P., age four, petitions this court to set aside the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26. She contends that the court erred in terminating her reunification services. We deny the petition. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND M.P. was detained following a referral from the police department that she was at risk as a result of mother’s mental health issues. On January 25, 2013, the police responded to mother’s home after she claimed M.P. had ingested an unknown pill. M.P. was taken to the hospital, “cleared,” and released the same day. In late January and again in February 2013, mother suffered a series of mental breakdowns including two requiring

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

1

emergency psychiatric services. On February 11, 2013, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) placed M.P. with her maternal grandmother. A combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held on April 10, 2014. The court sustained the allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition, finding that M.P. was at risk of harm due to mother’s mental health condition. The court also sustained the allegation that father’s whereabouts were unknown. The court declared M.P. to be a dependent of the court and placed her with her maternal grandmother. The court ordered reunification services for mother. The Agency’s report, filed October 4, 2013, for the six-month review hearing recommended that reunification services be continued. It stated that mother had attended three visits with M.P. in late July and early August 2013, as well as visits on August 15 and September 16, 2013. Mother was loving and appropriate during her visits. The report noted that mother was diagnosed with bipolar I disorder with manic, severe, and psychotic features. She was hospitalized in the psychiatric ward from May 22, 2013 until June 17, 2013, and then again from June 20 to July 16, 2013. After her release from the hospital, she was assigned a therapist and was treated at City Wide Focus, the highest level of mental health outpatient care in the county of San Francisco. Mother attended one visit with her psychiatrist on July 26, 2013, but missed her last two scheduled appointments on August 30 and September 10, 2013. She also missed two appointments with her therapist. The Agency further reported that mother continued to have difficulties with taking her medication. The court held the six-month review hearing on November 5, 2013, and ordered that reunification services be continued. The Agency’s report for the 12-month review hearing dated February 25, 2014 recommended that reunification services be terminated because mother had made minimal progress on her reunification plan. She had attended only two supervised visits in December 2013, and had continued to miss scheduled visits. She missed seven visits prior to being terminated by the Western Addition Family Resource Center (WAFRC) in January 2014. She complained that the WAFRC was unsanitary for M.P. because she