T.W. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2

Filed 8/27/14 T.W. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

T.W., Petitioner, v. A142179 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA (Contra Costa County COSTA COUNTY, Super. Ct. No. J11-01448) Respondent; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest.

This is a petition for an extraordinary writ, as authorized by rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court. The petitioner is a mother who seeks to have overturned the order of respondent Superior Court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 at which petitioner’s parental rights may be terminated with respect to petitioner’s daughter. She contends that the daughter should have been returned to her custody, and with additional reunification services. We conclude both contentions are without merit, and deny the petition on the merits.

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND The underlying dependency began in October 2011, when the minor was 13 years of age. Real Party in Interest Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a petition in which it was alleged that the minor qualified as a dependent because petitioner and the presumed father (who is not a party to this proceeding) failed to protect the child (§ 300, subd. (b)). The minor was immediately detained. Petitioner did not contest the allegation. It was not until June 2012 that the minor was adjudged a dependent, placed with the Bureau, and petitioner ordered to receive services that would promote reunification with her daughter. For the combined six-month and 12-month review hearing, the Bureau submitted a lengthy report advising the juvenile court that the minor was a freshman in high school, “has a history of doing well academically and we believe she is capable of passing all of her academic classes.” Her placement with foster parents “is going very well. The foster parents are committed to raising [the minor] to majority and have embraced her as part of their family. The minor “does not believe that she can return to the care of her mother as long as the father remains in the home. She is afraid of her father. She would like to remain in her current foster home.” Both parents “have never acknowledged responsibility” for the necessity of judicial intervention. “The Bureau respectfully recommends that the Court terminate Family Reunification Services as to both parents and set a 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan” of long term foster care for the minor. The juvenile court accepted these recommendations in January 2013. The next scheduled action was for what the Bureau termed “Post Permanent Plan Review Hearing” in July 2013 In its “Status Review Report” for that hearing, the Bureau informed the court that the minor had encountered difficulties. She completed her freshman year of high school, but her disappointing academic performance was attributed to excessive socializing with peers, as well as “minor and expected rebellion often associated with this age group.” Her placement had been changed to her godmother. Petitioner was reported to have suffered a “psychiatric crisis” that at least once necessitated her involuntary commitment, but the information known by the Bureau was