T.G. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 12/16/14 T.G. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

T.G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A143118 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. Nos. J13-00956, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN J13-00957) AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU et al., Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Petitioner seeks further family reunification services and a stay of the scheduled hearing to approve a permanent plan for her children, R.C. and D.B. We deny writ relief. Active efforts were made to reunify petitioner and her children, but she did not meet those efforts in kind. BACKGROUND Petitioner, T.G. (hereinafter mother), has had significant interactions with Children and Family Services departments in several counties dating back to 1991. Her

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, sections 8.1(1), (3). (Cal.Stds.Jud.Admin., § 8.1(1), (3).)

1

older children were removed from her care after she failed to reunify with them after several years of services. In August 2013, the Contra Costa Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter County) filed juvenile dependency petitions concerning two of mother’s eight children, two-year-old R.C. and 11-year-old D.B. The County alleged mother could not adequately supervise the youngsters because of an alcohol abuse problem and because she had remained in a relationship plagued by domestic violence. Specifically, mother reportedly kicked D.B. while drunk, was seen by D.B. being “terrible” and getting into fights while drunk, struck her “boyfriend” during a dispute (for which she arrested), and exposed her children to her lifestyle of prostitution. The County further alleged mother had left R.C. and D.B. with a family friend for approximately three months without providing direct financial support after the first month—she told the friend she was “ ‘going back to ho’ing’ ” and “ ‘going back to the streets,’ ” and eventually denied access to public money (including SSI and CalWorks funds) that were meant for the children. Based on mother’s membership in the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the County alleged R.C. and D.B. may be members of, or eligible for membership in, that tribe. At the contested jurisdictional hearing on September 13, 2013, the juvenile court found the allegations of the dependency petitions, as amended, to be true. At the contested dispositional hearing, in January 2014, the juvenile court found R.C. and D.B. to be dependent children and ordered reunification services for mother. Under the plan for services, mother was required to “enter and successfully complete individual counseling approved by the social worker, and receive a positive evaluation from therapist that parent understands the factors contributing to [her] dependency [and] has successfully addressed those issues.” She was also required to participate in counseling “to address trauma, loss and other emotional triggers that contribute to her alcohol dependence.” Finally, she was required to participate in family counseling directed, in part, at enhancing communication skills and managing anger. According to a July 7, 2014 status review report, mother finally began an outpatient substance abuse treatment program at Ujima West in February 2014. Through