M.J. v. Superior Court CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 12, 2014 No. F069515Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the father's reunification services because there was substantial evidence he failed to make substantive progress in his treatment plan, specifically regarding honesty and protecting the child.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in terminating the father's reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, subdivision (c)(1)(B).
Whether the father made substantive progress in his court-ordered treatment plan.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In order to terminate reunification services under section 388, subdivision (c)(1)(B), the juvenile court must find clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to regularly participate or make substantive progress in his or her court-ordered treatment plan.”

“We conclude there is substantial evidence on this record father failed to make substantive progress in his services plan.”

“The juvenile court assessed father’s credibility based on his testimony and determined that he lied about how Michelle came into contact with M.D.”

Filed 8/12/14 M.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

M.J., Petitioner, F069515 v. (Super. Ct. No. 516661) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. M.J., in pro per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

Petitioner M.J. (father) in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ review (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) of the juvenile court’s orders terminating his reunification services as to his one-year-old son M.D. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, subdivision (c)(1)(B)1 and setting a section 366.26 hearing. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Father and Michelle are the unmarried parents of one-year-old M.D. Michelle has an approximate 15-year history of methamphetamine use which began when she was 15 years old. As a result of her drug use, she lost her parental rights to an infant son in June 2004. During the dependency proceedings for her son, Michelle gave birth to a daughter. She and the daughter tested positive for amphetamines. The child was removed from Michelle’s custody and she was denied reunification services. The child’s father successfully reunified with her. Also around this same time, Michelle was charged with possession of a controlled substance and apparently pled guilty. The criminal court entered a deferred judgment on the condition she complete a drug court program. Michelle did not complete the program and was convicted of the charge. In April 2013, Michelle gave birth to M.D. She and M.D. tested positive for amphetamine. Michelle identified father as one of two men who could be M.D.’s father. She said she and father had been in a relationship for five years but terminated the relationship. She said she was in a relationship with Raymond, the other alleged father. The Stanislaus County Community Service Agency (agency) took M.D. into protective custody.

M.J. v. Superior Court CA5

AI Brief

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief