In re A.C. CA1/4

Filed 10/27/14 In re A.C. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141272 v. (San Francisco County MICHELLE C., Super. Ct. No. JD-13-3132) Defendant and Appellant.

Michelle C., the mother of A.C., appeals from the orders denying her Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition and terminating her parental rights. She contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition requesting reunification services and that the court’s denial of the petition undermined the constitutionality of the section 366.26 hearing. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 13, 2013, a section 300 petition was filed alleging that parents have a substance abuse problem which impedes their ability to safely parent A.C. The petition alleged that father2 suffered a seizure while at a shopping mall with A.C. and was unable

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Father has not filed an appeal in this matter.

1

to speak or control his extremities and mother was found unresponsive in her car, extremely lethargic and unable to speak. The petition further alleged that parents’ rights were terminated as to A.C.’s sibling, who was the subject of a prior dependency and had since been adopted. A.C. was detained and placed in the home of the paternal aunt. The San Francisco Human Services Agency’s (the Agency) report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing recommended that the allegations of the petition be sustained. It noted parents’ long-standing history of narcotics addiction to Soma,3 a muscle relaxant. They had been discharged from the Jelani House program because of the risk that they were using Soma on the premises. The Agency recommended that parents be bypassed for reunification services pursuant to section 361.5. At the time of the Agency’s addendum report in August 2013, parents had entered the Walden House residential programs at different sites. Mother had tested positive for Soma on July 8, 2013 and had missed drug tests on July 16 and 19. On August 16, 2013, parents did not contest jurisdiction and submitted to the allegations of the petition as amended. The court found that parents had made minimal progress in mitigating the causes necessitating the dependency. The court bypassed reunification services for parents based on their failure to reunify with A.C.’s sibling. The court ordered placement of A.C. with the paternal aunt, and set a section 366.26 hearing. On November 15, 2013, mother filed a request pursuant to section 388 for an order granting her reunification services. She alleged that she had been in residential treatment for over three months and that she was sober since July 2013. She also stressed that she had “an extremely close bond” with A.C. She included copies of negative drug test results for late July to September which noted missed tests on July 19, July 22, and August 19. She also included certificates of completion in classes for coping with stress triggers, motivation, and relapse prevention. The court set the matter for a hearing to